flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas

But the devil is in the details, so you have it precisely backwards - it's the Flood-inconsistent ordering that trumps the layers and the large numbers of fossils being evidence for the flood. The specific disproves the general, not the other way around.

But the ordering is not necessarily a problem for the flood. Most of it is consistent with it -- marine life in the lower layers, land animals in the upper layers for instance. And since the layers themselves and the fossils themselves are consistent with a worldwide flood explanation and not at all with a slow deposition explanation, this puts the preponderant weight of evidence on the side of the flood.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-11-2006 12:37 PM

I think we are starting to cross the line from discussing ad-hoc/unfalsifiable theory structure into another flood geology vs consensus geology thread. Try to keep on the right side of the topic line, or away from it all together if you can't trust yourself

---

That's not the ordering, though. The ordering is often very specific - hominids are never found below dinosaurs, etc. Some of the ordering isn't even probable. For instance we don't find grasses anywhere but the highest levels. We don't even find it's pollen, which nowadays is literally everywhere (which if you have hay fever, you're all too aware of by now), fossilized anywhere but the highest levels. That's a false statement, as you well know.

What I said about the ordering is true. End of off-topic discussion.

Oh, right. How dare I question the word of Faith?You're unbeliveable.

Crash, what Faith said about ordering in the earlier post:

quote:

---

marine life in the lower layers, land animals in the upper layers for instance
  —Faith

---

Is true. The lowest layers are all marine life and there are land animals in the upper layers only.However, it is far, far from the whole story and the typical kind of things that the major creo organizations and speakers use. It is, all by itself not untrue. It is however so far from the whole story as to be a deliberate dishonesty. An excellent example of the kind of behavior that brings distain on those organisations.Playing "lawyer" like some children do to claim you didn't technically lie doesn't mean you aren't a liar in spirit.

You guys are off topic or otherwise I might have more to say on the topic. Thank you at least for acknowledging that what I did say was correct.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-11-2006 02:05 PM

I think this often is self deception though. They are distorting the evidence to support what they are emotionally dependent on. Like a spouse being cheated on coming up with explanations that eliminate unfaithfulness on the part of their partner because they feel they couldn't handle emotionally the knowledge that their spouse was unfaithful.It's not what is usually meant as lying in the sense that they know A is really the case but assert not-A. It's more they believe B and A contradicts B so they seize on anything to invalidate A.lfen

This is what I think of as existential bad faith--the willed ignorance of unacceptable knowledge. Similarly, we witness the stubborn conviction that a POW spouse/parent or a missing family member remains alive despite strong evidence to the contrary. None of these people are lying: the consequences of the willed-away knowledge are simply too dire.Religious belief seems especially prone to this sort of defensive bad faith.

I was talking about organizations like ICR and AIG. I think at that level with the corrections and attention they get it goes beyond this kind of psychology. As individuals they all suffer from it (probably) but.... well maybe I just don't understand the depth of terror they feel --- but when someone spreads, in an organized way, untruths it is hard to find another word than lying.

I understand the distinction you are drawing, Ned, and I agree that it is difficult to maintain a psychological/philosophical view of human flaws in the case of an institutionalized practice that seems closer to propaganda, i.e., lies in the service of a "greater truth."No doubt most institutions of belief harbor both knaves and fools as well as the ethical and sincere.Still, group psychology is, if anything, even stranger than the individual. Examples of a diverse population turning on itself murderously after decades of apparently friendly coexistence abound--I'm sure those who became mobs felt the "rightness" of their conduct and the "truth" of their beliefs.That people can hack each other to death over ethnic or doctrinal differences in the name of a divine being who ostensibly forbids such conduct demonstrates how deeply bad faith can go.

You really think that's true? That the most recent fossils in every region are strictly terrestrial fauna?Or did I just not understand you?Regardless, to say that "marine at the bottom and terrestrial at the top" constitutes the pattern and ordering of fossils in the fossil record is so great an overstatement that it simply can't be considered a true statement. The fossil ordering we see is that older fossils are at the bottom and younger ones at the top; and that, generally, simpler fossils are older and more complex derivatives are younger. And, indeed, the simplest fossils were marine organisms because it's simpler to live in the ocean than on land.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-11-2006 11:01 PM

Oh well I guess we go off-topicking on.So you prefer the Standard Explanation about the ordering. That doesn't make what I said false.

And to all of you: Alas, the bad faith and self delusion that is in evidence on this thread is on the part of those who deny the one true God, on whose revelation I base my contentions about the Flood.