Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

Thank you. I've many times thought of starting a thread for accumulating such examples, but that takes so much work I haven't gotten around to it. Still have it in mind. There are tons of them but it's a job demonstrating the ToE terminology first of all, then going on to give a purely objective description of the phenomenon in question to demonstrate the spin effect of the ToE terminology and the bare facts of the naked data, and then offering other equally plausible explanations, as well as having to deal with the pile-on of evolutionist opponents who misunderstand every word you say before it's even out of your mouth, and start slinging sophisticated science that's beyond my range instead of dealing with the facts I've offered, and I just haven't been up to it.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-24-2005 04:40 PM

I don't have time to get into this now, but why should chromosomes not show the same design consistencies that the creature itself shows? Why should genotypes not have similar design patterns just as phenotypes do? That is, if humans and great apes DO NOT have a common ancestor we could just as well expect genetic homologies based on the observable similarities in body design -- and those homologies don't go anywhere near as far as you imply anyway, just as the similarity in body design begs a multitude of dissimilarities. There is NO reason whatever to suppose genetic relatedness based on similarity of design at ANY level. That is an unwarranted extrapolation, a consistent error committed in defense of the ToE.More later.

It is ALL interpretation. Don't you see that? Creationists are just as good at coming up with contrary interpretations of any of it given enough experience with the material. There is no PROOF, don't you see? No evidence, no testability, no falsifiability, it's all INTERPRETATION, all PLAUSIBILITIES against PLAUSIBILITIES. Find all the similarities you want they are JUST AS WELL explained in terms of design factors, or, in the case of apparent shared genetic anomalities or mistakes, by the effects of the Fall on all life. Our genes are broken because of the Fall. There is NO COMPELLING REASON to explain any of it in terms of descent. I avoid discussing radiometric dating techniques, because if the whole edifice is shown to be a fantasy they'll be properly falsified in their time; but the general answer is that you CAN'T KNOW about the past with such certainty, no matter what your techniques, especially considering the kinds of circumstances YECs postulate of catastrophic circumstances, occurring both at the Fall and again at the Flood, affecting the entire physical creation in unknowable but no doubt drastic ways. Evolution rests on ASSUMPTIONS and interpretations, not on evidence. You ASSUME that the fossil sequence shows genetic descent, you cannot prove that, you simply extrapolate it from the appearance that there is a sequence, and yes I agree it's interesting that it TO SOME EXTENT mirrors the taxonomic sequence of living things classified by morphology and genes as well, but ALL WE ARE EVER TOLD is those bits of data that support the theory, we have to hunt for those that falsify it.But if you want to get specific, EXPLAIN those sedimentation layer records" please. This is not a science thread and it would be nice of you to make your points clear, not expect me to know what you are talking about. What you have are NOT "scientific merits." This whole discussion is based on nothing but assumptions as I just discussed above.Typical flat evo assertions: Only if you believe the assumption that the sequence implies genetic descent. Only if you believe the assumption that the strata represent vast periods of time. There could yet be such evidence found, but the earth is huge and exposed surfaces and digs are few and far between, and it does appear that fossils were sorted according to some principle -- not yet known --so that humans ended up in different layers than the dinosaurs. There are many reasons to think that all the fossils were killed at one time, and had all lived on the earth together until overtaken by catastrophe. The apparent sequence is deceptive. There are many things against it, such as1) The layers are such distinctly different sediments abruptly separated from one another, not gradually blended or merged, not jumbled or mixed, just one kind laid down flat on top of another completely different kind. {Edit: Why should a particular period of time, millions of years yet, be defined by a particular kind of sediment deposition? Does that make sense?2) And then there's the regular horizontality of the sediments instead of the appearance of disturbance, although they supposedly were built up over millions of years;3) The disturbances that ARE seen are on the SURFACE of each layer. Why? Erosion even then is quite minimal but it only cuts into the top of the layer. That makes no sense if we're talking about periods of millions of years. Why would erosion occur ONLY at the surface and not the interior, and all through the interior for that matter so that horizontality and homogeneity couldn't even be said to describe them? That suggests rapid deposition of one thick layer of sediment followed by a period of time in which animals and running water and other forces acted on its surface before the next thick layer was laid down. How long? Could have been hours or days or weeks I suppose. Perhaps enormous tidal waves rushing across whole continents? Sucking back to an enormous distance out to sea to gather a new wave laden with new sediments? Maybe more than one process involved? Who knows? But the data fit with something along these lines a lot better than with the geo timescale.4) And not just erosion but animal tracks also show up on the surface of these strata. Again, why not all through the layer, considering that supposedly during the multiplied millions of years it supposedly took to form bazillions of creatures lived and died and supposedly evolved from one thing into another. They left their footprints -- but only on the surface? No, that suggests sudden deposition. That suggests a wet mass of sediment being laid down and animals scrambling across it before the next one comes, so fast in fact that it PRESERVED their footprints, which COULD NOT happen in slow deposition. I know that in many places the sediments are said to have been laid down in water, but that requires that periodically they are exposed to air and eroded and then returned under water and that at that point an entirely different kind of sediment and fossil content begins the slow process of homogeneous regular deposition over millions of years, and that just plain makes no sense.5) Also, that types of fossils are associated with such distinctly different sediments makes no sense. Why should one age or era be so different from another as to mere sediment deposition over enormous swaths of geography for one thing, but odder than that, why are the fossils so strictly tied to their own peculiar layer and no other and their supposedly evolved versions only appear in subsequent layers? That is, why in a layer that represents 20 million years or so don't we see an evolved difference between the fossils on the bottom from those close to the top of the layer if they were supposedly evolving all that time and in fact a "later" evolved type shows up in a higher layer? The fact is that the fossils of one type are all found scattered throughout the thickness of the layer willynilly, isn't that so? They OBVIOUSLY don't represent a gradual accumulation of fossils of creatures that lived in different periods, they represent a one-time disaster that took bazillions of them to a muddy grave all at once, so suddenly that it was able to preserve them intact and permit their fossilization.6) Why the order? Well, I suspect that complexity isn't the sorting factor. I'm certain age isn't, or descent from one kind to another over time. The main observation is that all the supposed "oldest" layers are marine, while the supposedly more "recent" layers are of land animals. That's obviously one sorting factor. I don't know how a worldwide flood would do that but it's a better explanation than the bazillion year evolution notion. It makes sense that land animals would be on the top though and marine on the bottom, as they'd have gone to the highest ground before they were overtaken in the flood. They'd have grouped themselves with their own kind and have been taken with their own kind.There's more but I didn't even start out intending to give you this much of an answer.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 12:06 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 12:45 AM

It takes forever to read through a link and it involves multiple points that take a long time to answer. Why don't you just make your point in your own words and use the link for backup and stick to one point at a time. I did read through it and just answered it as a matter of fact. So what it anticipates what I said? I've heard it all before and it's just the usual evo way of interpreting the data, and obviously any contradictory data is not going to be presented. This kind of debate asks WAY too much of your opponent. I don't want to be buried in it. I'd like a nice brief abstract of it if you don't mind in your own words. I do a LOT of background reading, but I'm looking for something DIFFERENT than you are and it takes longer and it takes more work than just reading. You are right that I do that, but when I see a wall of evolutionist propaganda coming at me I just lose interest. If you can't boil it down I don't want to deal with it. And why shouldn't any apparent similarities exist on the design principle at ANY level, whether genes or chromosomes or whatnot? Do you expect me to take your word for that?

I have to assume you aren't interested in communicating if you just like to sprinkle terms around. No need to address it. It speaks for itself. And I came up with something like six I believe, all descriptive of the geological facts. Just off the top of my head. I guess you can assert anything even if it's utterly illogical. It is NOT consistent with deposition over a long period of time, it's absurd to think that one sediment would deposit exclusively for twenty million years and then abruptly with no transition whatever but a knife-edge thin demarcation between the two, be covered by an entirely different sediment that proceeds to deposit exclusively for another umpteen million years. You can just go right ahead and flatly assert that it can, but that's because there's no way to test it, prove it, falsify it etc. so there's no way to answer you with any finality. I answer you by pointing out the outrageous absurdity of it. It is absurd to the max, but you can always deny it anyway, DeNial not being a river in Egypt under the circumstances. Everything I pointed out in my list shows the absurdity of the assumptions of the geo timescale to explain the strata of the geological column and the far more likely explanation of rapid deposition given the actual geological facts. Beginning with the abrupt change from one sediment to another. Really absurd. Dinosaurs roamed when there was just this one kind of sediment for those millions of years that they got buried in, supposedly one after another individually over huge spans of time, but when something else roamed there was this completely other kind of sediment. That makes sense to you? I'm supposed to look that up I guess? Yes it's not true everywhere. There were tectonic upheavals after the strata were laid down (obviously not during the bazillion years of their laying down as there they all are, just uptilted but still parallel. (Yeah I disagree that the un(non?)conformity at the bottom of the GrandCanyon came first. I think it's obvious that it occurred after the whole column was laid down, as evidenced by the fact that on a cross section of the area you can see that the north side of the canyon is at the upper part of a mound formation obviously pushed up from beneath, and the strata remain parallel even though they cover this enormous territory all the way from the Grand Canyon into Utah, and follow the contour created by the upthrust from below.) And the upheavals turned some of them on their sides and every which way, but even then you see the parallel formation of the strata which implies original horizontality. You see it also in the mountain ranges, so many neatly parallel stratifications upthrust at angles to the horizon. And in some places they didn't deposit so neatly either, so that's another exception to the rule. But the rule exists, and it is that the strata occur all over the world and geology texts themselves point out their horizontality as a major feature. No need. I can't remember the distinctions between un, dis and non conformities, but I'm aware of the basic idea and it's your job to explain what you mean instead of rudely sending me to google. Again it is irrelevant that it is not true in "many cases." The principle holds for the cases in which it IS true. From arguments at EvC. Leaf prints etc I'd expect within the strata, they are just a form of buried fossil, but tracks imply a surface that was walked on. However even the uniform sediments were deposited in multiple layers so that could occur too. But overall the discussion of these things has the evolutionist side always pointing to the surface of strata, for instance the erosion at the top of the Muav formation in the Grand Canyon and the tracks at the top of I think the Coconino, I forget. Only to someone who assumes geological time and has to make it work somehow or other. There are always plausible scenarios, not all that plausible really, quite jerryrigged really. So these fossils are marine so this had to be underwater but that one is sand so it had to be above water so we'll figure there were many risings and fallings of the sea to account for this, and besides we can see the evidence of periodic shorelines... so this bit and that bit and you've got yourself convinced, but on the face of it as I've described it, the idea is just plain absurd. The problem is that it's just about impossible to FIND a clear description of the simple phenomena of the strata and their fossil contents. One has to make do with evolutionized schematic diagrams and predigested explanations and try to figure out what the actual physical scene looks like from that useless information. I've looked in vain for hours for simple descriptions of actual physical facts. No, I get endless references to "Cretaceous" this and "Permian" that and "this evolved from that" instead of "such and such was found at such and such a place" etc.One source of such information, however, is information on how the Grand Canyon strata are defined -- in multiple web sites, with its clearly demarcated layers and their particular fossil contents clearly identified with the time period assigned to the clearly demarcated sedeiment layers. And how on earth would the ToE and OE predict changing sediments with unique fossil contents? They should predict no such thing as changing discrete sediments for starters, let alone the association of them with particular fossil contents. I'm talking generally. I've run across general descriptions of how a certain fossil is a primitive form of another fossil in a higher layer and the fact that they are separated by different kinds of sediments that are named for time periods hits me as ridiculous. I don't have any motivation to get more specific information. You can easily extrapolate after the fact that there wasn't a great deal of change of course, just because your assumptions demand that conclusion. That's just another case of the kind of plausibility that is derived from the assumption itself that is then used to justify the assumption, that the whole ToE is woven together with.{Edit: Meaning, how would you KNOW that "Sometimes there may not be a great deal of change in 20 million years that would show up in fossils?" YOu "know" it only by the fact that in the geo column these fossils have the same form throughout a depth of strata that has been called 20 million years, right? THEREFORE "there just wasn't a great deal of change in those 20 million years." Classical circular reasoning, the stuff that glues together the ToE and the Geo timescale.But depending on the fossil -- you fill in the blank, I know this occurs, I don't care where -- in the layer above there are fossils that are of the same basic species but different, and you conclude that they are an evolved form of the earlier one. WHY? Because they are in this upper layer, that's why. There is no other reason. And you "know" their age by their position in the strata. I shouldn't need to be specific should I? The concept ought to be recognizable. It's the kind of thing we laypeople get fed all the time. That's funny, just rank speculation, as what I'm doing is pointing out that that's all the ToE has is rank speculation of greater or lesser plausibility, no real evidence of any sort, and I'm offering a different set of explanations that I consider to have better plausibility.Yes, you can always point out the exceptions, but it is a fact that the land animals do not appear in the lower layers but only in the upper. And sometimes layers are inverted and rearranged. And marine creatures were dispersed throughout the entire flood after all, so that explains their appearance at the heights of mountains and mounds of them in the deserts too.I apologize for my seeming rudeness but I AM making sense and I get SO tired of this insistence that I understand YOUR vocabulary and YOUR evolutionist assumptions when I'm trying to COUNTER those assumptions. Yes I know you sincerely think I need to know these specific things. I know more than you think I know but I also know I don't need to know them for what I'm trying to say.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 03:41 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 03:46 AM

The problem is that your way of dealing with me makes me not care about learning anything, and what I'm saying makes sense as is. You didn't answer what I asked, just to correct that however. First you gave me a link and then what you "said in your own words" was not an explanation but just another flat assertion. Yes I've read a lot of geology in specific discussions here but it will never be enough.

Did you read deerbreh's first link? The models were created by looking at the geo column and seeing the consistency of the strata from one location to the next and extrapolating the OE theory from that. Flood theory is just as easily extrapolated from that but they extrapolated OE theory instead. If you can explain the same phenomena two different ways then your particular explanation is not as compelling as it may seem to you. And since the whole idea that distinctly different clearly differentiated strata to depths of hundreds of feet could have built up over millions of years is absurd on the face of it, requiring raisings and lowerings of sea level for instance, which is in itself impossible to explain, your explanation loses even more credibility. Except of course that you can just refuse to NOTICE that it's absurd and go right on insisting that this or that DID happen, since after all radiometric dating can always take up the slack for any absurdity, and there's no way to actually prove any of it anyway. It is the Grand Canyon which I've thought most about because of the previous debate on it. That's an odd copout, "could be open to different interpretation." Interesting. Different but not my interpretation huh? The GC demonstrates the absurdity of the idea that the strata could have formed over 600 million years, strata ANYWHERE, and I gave six reasons why it's absurd. There are more than that. Well that's a handy hedging-one's-bets time span I'd say. "Orientation and overlapping" somehow require at LEAST tens of thousands of years you say. I won't even ask. But orientation and overlapping sound like tectonically produced events off the top of my head, and there's no reason to think that took any great length of time. That's fine. I stay away from the dating methods. There are many objections to them in any case. But if the geological timescale is absurd on the face of it, which it is, all the other considerations like dating will be rethought eventually too.

I haven't claimed a knowledge of any specific geologic content of "basic geology" as if I'd taken a basic course or something. All I've said is that I've read a ton of stuff about geology online and that's true. I've also run across the terms loess and varves but if it doesn't relate to my immediate interests I don't study the concept. No, I'm looking for particular information, I'm not taking a geology course when I spend hours online searching geology sites. Also I don't seem to be remembering terms very well, but I do remember the concepts.If you don't want to say how and why loess and varves are relevant to the discussion I just get impatient. That's your job, not mine. Meanwhile I've shown how the basic idea of the geological timescale is absurd. I guess it's hard to see after someone has become used to thinking in the terms that surround it and support it, but really there's nothing more to say except that the arrangement in distinct layers with distinct fossil contents doesn't make sense on the long-ages idea no matter what plausible scenarios can be concocted to rationalize it. Nice site. Proves what I knew it would, original horizontality which is what you were supposedly answering. I was answering your objection to my saying the strata were horizontal. You gave that site to prove they aren't always, as if I wouldn't have known that. That site shows that of course they were originally horizontal. You don't get parallel formations like that otherwise. If you hadn't objected to my original obvious point about horizontality we wouldn't have needed to go on this merrygoround, but that site is interesting so I don't really mind.It's a typical case of evolutionist interpretation being used instead of actual description, as in "The Rockwell and Purslane Formations were deposited during the early Mississippian, about 330 to 345 million years ago." Oh really? And how did they arrive at that? We'll never know, they'll never say. We're just supposed to memorize it and accept it. YEC explanations would have them laid down rapidly, which in fact fits a lot better with their actual disposition in neat layers of discrete sediments than any long-term deposition idea does, and also much better explains how fossilization processes could have occurred as frequently as they did.But why do you have the layers being eroded FIRST? The website has the strata built and the top layer eroded, then the whole thing buckled by the tectonic forces that created the Alleghenies, then the tops of the newly formed ridges eroded away and the harder sediments maintaining peaks etc. Obviously rapid deposition from a flood answers your question about how much time THAT would take, not millions of years but whatever period of time it took for the waters to completely recede from all land areas, which isn't known. The layers' formation into rock would have to do with the great pressures caused by the weight of the whole wet stack, rather than huge periods of time, although certainly it must have taken SOME time to dry out and harden into rock. If they were then folded so neatly into an accordian formation as the diagrams show, that suggests that they weren't completely hardened at that point, as one would think that hardened rock would crack and break before it would fold like that. So that suggests that the whole strata formation was laid down rather rapidly, not given time to completely harden before the force that buckled it into mountains occurred, though all of this could have taken a thousand years or so. The subsequent erosion shouldn't have taken any millions of years. The thousands since the Flood should take care of it nicely. No, it's about how I got dragged into this debate with you who piled on a ton of side issues when I'd said just a very few things that you didn't even address directly, and I can easily repeat my observations of various absurdities without special knowledge of how evolutionists rationalize them.Have a nice day yourself. I have to get to work.

Gotcha. Not the layers just the depostion of the layers. OK. Yes they had to come from somewhere and since the actual evidence shows that they were deposited quite rapidly and folded pretty soon after as previously discussed, we can figure that this occurred with the Flood's dissolving and battering of the pre-diluvian world, both undersea and on land, then either precipitating out or depositing in currents ior waves the separated out sediments. Which could happen in the last stages of the flood if there was a longish time gap between waves or tides, but as I pointed out the folding of the strata without causing breaks and all kinds of thrusting jutting elements suggests that the strata were still not completely hardened, so that erosion between the layers was not a prolonged thing, certainly not considering that in some places footprints were preserved by their filling with a new sediment, rather than washed away which would normally occur from water erosion. How so? The Rockies are mostly hard rock such as granite aren't they? They were also not formed by accordian-like buckling as the Alleghenies were, but by dramatic upthrusts in which the parallel structure of the strata were preserved and quite visible. It does seem that they would have been younger however in that the rock appears to have been solidly hardened before being upthrust in such long straight slabs, unlike the Alleghenies which just softly formed folds suggesting a degree of dampness or incomplete hardening and maybe even less tectonic force. Seems to me that both the composition and the way the Alleghenies were folded would make them more susceptible to severe erosion as compared to the Rockies. Unless it wasn't completely hardened when it was finally in its completed form, and besides, the way it buckled suggests more susceptibility/exposure to erosion. Or:
Erosion of land and stirring up of sea contents by the flood,
Sediment layers deposited one after the other in a relatively short time with relatively short intervals between,
Whole stack formed and top eroded by streams,
Uplifting before dry and hard, meaning accordian type folding in the case of the Alleghenies,
Both hardening and erosion occurring over time after completed formation,
No more layering or rock formation, it was a one-time event,
Just continued erosion to the present day. Fossils were deposited with the sediments. Rivers and meanders formed on a layer before the next deposited, as small versions of streams and pools also form on the beach at high tide and make rivulets before the next wave hits. The incredibly intense nonstop rain that caused the flood, not to mention the opening of the "fountains of the deep" whatever those were, would have stirred up sediments in sea and on land everywhere on earth rather drastically. Waters would have been heavy with mud -- and various kinds of dead creatures -- in many places. The final effects of whole thing from the rain and the dissolving of earth through the volcanic and tectonic upheavals to the layering, buckling and drying out of sediment layers could easily have been over within a few hundred years, though hardening and eroding would no doubt have continued, even up to the present. Nobody ever suggested that erosion occurred before the flood. The flood and concomitant catastrophic occurrences such as the movement of the tectonic plates when the fountains of the deep broke and the release of magma in volcanic action, all contributed to the breakdown and stirring up of immense quantities of sediments.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 01:01 PM

I've already explained the strata being deposited within the time of the flood including the period during which it was receding. The uncomformities that are upthrust or otherwise displaced portions of strata occurred with the tectonic pressures on the column after all the strata were laid down. Intrusions could have happened at any time in the process, as there was a lot of volcanic activity released by the flood. So products of volcanic eruptions could have been carried in the water along with other sediments to form part of a layer or as magma that pushed up from below into the strata after they were formed too and possibly while still damp. Fossils as I said were dead creatures carried by the flood along with the sediments and buried within them when they were deposited by the flood waters. Footprints were fleeing animals running on the surface of the last deposit before the next one came, fast enough to preserve the footprints. I already explained most of this. It's not all that difficult to come up with such possibilities.

I'm sure I'm older than you, and I don't appreciate your attitude.

Lot of text there I'm not going to get around to for a while. It would have been nice of you to abstract the main points.As far as I can see, none of those rocks with their jagged edges and lumpy forms look like the illustration deerbreh posted of roundly folded strata. Are there examples of that sort of strain in the Alleghenies? Could be for all I know. And since I'm not reading the text, what is the evidence that this sort of strain occurs to solidly lithified rocks rather than to them at some softer point in their lithification? Am I to accept that a buried trilobite would simply elongate rather than break into pieces if it were already fossilized? Am I to believe that hardened rock can acquire waviness or record rain drops?How about the strata which are exposed in the Grand Canyon walls and which cover the enormous territory from there up into Utah? How about where the strata are shown in diagrams holding their parallel forms while draping themselves over the upraised area which is just north of the canyon and which the canyon cuts through?Here's a diagram: Grand Canyon & Grand Staircase cross section Scroll down to picture.Do hardened rocks stretch yet keep their perfectly parallel evenness like that? Two separate diagrams posted on the GC debate thread show that rounded perfectly parallel form. Are there examples of such stretching over that mound to the north of the GC? There should be, I would think, considering that the raising of the land there obviously occurred after all the strata were laid down, including the unconformity at the very base of the canyon. But there is also evidence of cracking and breaking: The canyons themselves, the cliffs that are the broken edges of the higher strata in the Grand Staircase area. There are also tracks beneath the whole formation suggesting magma intrusion from beneath, although they don't reach into the strata area. But they could have under the right circumstances.In any case I don't see how your information affects anything I said. I don't care if they deformed before or after they lithified, only the way they buckled suggests something short of perfect hardness and I'm not sure anything you linked truly precludes that possibility. The Rockies appear to have been upthrust after total lithification which could happen pretty rapidly under the enormous pressures of the weight of the wet/damp column itself.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 03:48 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 04:04 PM

The usual evolutionist semi-plausible scenarios. Mine make more sense.

You should be banned for this personal attack. In fact I believe I will report you.

Yes. Nobody has the right to impose their personal assessment of someone else on them, based on their "interactions with" that person, as if their subjective judgments and feelings deserve such a high place. There are other people in the world, not just you, and your personal judgments should be kept to yourself except when asked for.{Correction: Pleasant civility doesn't require lies.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 05:01 PM