Summations Only

quote:

---

The other methods of dating take you no further back than 10,000 years, such as tree rings

---

Even tree rings go last 12,000 years. Varve counts go back significantly further, and ice cores can go back hundreds of thousands of years.

quote:

---

Wow, I think that must be the most wacko thing I've heard yet.

---

Funny how you think obvious truths are crazy, but then you think obvious lunacy is fact.No, since earlier stuff ends up on the bottom the order from bottom to top is a chronological order of deposition. Funny how you can’t work out something that obvious.

quote:

---

There is nothing about the chronology that makes it synonymous with the timescale paradigm's billions of years. RFunny how you can't work out something that obvious.

---

Of course I didn’t say anything about the timescales. I explicitly excluded the timescales. So all you have is misrepresention.
And foolish misrepresentation at that. You didn’t really think you could get away with it, did you ?

quote:

---

A motley collection of dates, and none of them justify the billions of years craziness

---

They make my point, though. And they justify the rejection of YEC. There is not one valid dating method that limits the age of the Earth to anything like 10,000 years.

quote:

---

There is no lie where the focus is on the physical facts in the effort to prove the Flood based on those facts.

---

Even when deception by omission is involved ?And how about your case where you invent facts ?The physical evidence is strongly against the Flood, which is why you have to invent facts, misrepresent opposing views and ignore opposing evidence or come up with wild fantasies in an attempt to explain it away.

quote:

---

The lie is on the other side where you insist on the term "religion" to discredit the scientific effort of creationists.

---

Funny how you call the truth a lie. You’ve already admitted that your objective is to prove a religious doctrine and we know you aren’t restricted by reason or evidence or honesty.

quote:

---

If the Bible is true history, as of course YECs believe, it's like any other source of actual fact, on which science can certainly be based.

---

And here you admit that YEC is based on religious belief. On a religious belief at odds with both the findings of history and science and even scholarly study of the Bible itself. YEC is primarily religious apologetics, of that fact there can be no doubt.

Let’s review these as claims to produce a model.

quote:

---

how water lays down sedimentary strata

---

And the fact that you concentrate on narrow flumes and volcanic eruptions as your models of deposition - neither of which are plausible causes of anything more than a part of the geological record rather undermines that. Besides we have sedimentary strata not laid down by water, too.

quote:

---

how sedimentary strata make no sense in the timescale paradigm

---

Claiming that an opposing model is inadequate does not mean that you have a model. Especially when the claim is dubious.

quote:

---

how the huge numbers of fossils are consistent with the Flood and not the timescale piecemeal deposition model

---

You have shown no such thing. You haven’t even shown that the number of fossils is plausible if the Flood were the cause.

quote:

---

how the timescale interpretation of the "fossil order" has no objective basis, it's all pure imagination

---

You have shown no such thing. You haven’t even tried to show such a thing. All you hVe is a silly excuse for rejecting dating evidence.

quote:

---

how all the strata were laid down flat and straight before any kind of tectonic or volcanic disturbance affected them

---

The evidence shows many cases of tectonic events that occurred before all the strata were deposited. The assertion that you have shown otherwise is just a falsehood.

quote:

---

how their initial flatness and straightness is consistent with the Flood and not with the timescale paradigm

---

And another falsehood.

quote:

---

how dating methods can't be proved

---

In reality the correlation of independent methods - which we have - is very strong evidence for the reliability of dating methods. Ignoring that fact - as you do - hardly helps your case.So, in fact, all your claims to have a model are in Fact claims to have evidential support - and they are nearly all outright lies.

quote:

---

I understand that. I just think it's a sad chapter in the history of science that they didn't recognize that the entire geologic column is evidence of the Flood.

---

You mean that they didn’t lie and pretend that the geological column is evidence for the Flood ? Don’t forget that your version of the geological column is largely made up and ignores significant evidence.

quote:

---

I can't figure out how that would dissuade them from the Flood

---

It showed that the Biblical timescale didn’t allow enough time for the observed erosion.

First there is the assertion that it is an illusion.This has never been backed up by any reasoning or evidence. In fact the order is an observation based on the techniques of relative dating that work to identify the order of deposition even if Faith’s Flood geology were correct.Second, there is the semantics argument. This is the assertion that the term order should not be used since Faith assumes that it is the product of pure chance. However, the term does not make any assumptions about the origin of the order, and if anything implies a non-chance origin it is the fact of the order itself.Third there is the assertion that there are no systematics to the order. This is only partially true. For instance no dinosaur remains were deposited before the Triassic system, and - with the exception of birds - none were deposited after the Cretaceous system. And yet dinosaurs were hugely variable in size and shape and inhabited a diverse array of habitats all over the world (also, to emphasise the unimportance of habitat there were large marine and flying reptiles which are also only found in the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous systems). There is a degree of systematics and it is related to taxonomy (and nothing else), which should really not be the case if the fossils were of animals all living at the same time.This point also refutes the claim that any order would suit evolution (curiously phrased as the denial of the existence of any order). If the order had no correspondence with taxonomy evolution would never have even got started. There are acceptable variations, but if - for instance - rabbits were only found in the Triassic (with no other changes from the observed order) evolution would have serious problems accounting for them.So, all in all Faith has done nothing to dent the fact that the order in the fossil record is very strong evidence against her Flood geology, or even to dent it as evidence of evolution.

quote:

---

The "fossil order" in the sense of the timescale interpretation of the observed physical sequence of fossils, is an illusion because it is nothing but subjective imagination that defines it.

---

What is the timescale interpretation ? And what is the basis for your claim that nothing but subjective imagination defines it?

quote:

---

How the different creatures "look" is all there is. The lower "look" more primitive or less complex or whatever the criteria are these days, the higher "look" more evolved or more advanced etc The lower "look" more primitive or less complex or whatever the criteria are these days, the higher "look" more evolved or more advanced etc. It is all very 19th century.would

---

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you ? (If you actually learned about the real science you might make sense)

quote:

---

It's like Phrenology in that way, and lots of 19th century "theories." The ToE itself. All mental conjuring.

---

Oh dear, just more idiotic Creationist dishonesty.When you explain exactly what you think you are refuting I’ll explain the truth to you. That’s if you even know.

Since Faith refuses to even clarify what she meant, let alone support her assertions I will dismantle her post without it.The first point of course is the title. The order of the fossil record is a well-established fact and Faith never says anything to impugn it, so the title as written is both false and unsupported.The second is this: Presumably Faith means the interpretation of the order of the fossil record as a sequence of different forms of life appearing and disappearing over time.This view was notably put forward by Georges Cuvier, a Catastophist and an opponent of the forms of evolution proposed during his life (he died before Darwin published). Cuvier made significant contributions to geology and taxonomy so his views should carry some weight.Cuvier did much of his own research, notably a study of the fossils found in the Paris basin. As a catastrophist he attributed the extinctions to massive floods - plural.In fact, even making no assumptions about how the strata were deposited the idea is quite a natural one. There is no viable sorting mechanism or even criterion that would explain what is actually seen.When it is recognised that the strata were deposited over a long period of time, then it becomes quite clearly true.So there is no need for any 19th Century ideas about progress.Now I will grant that evolution makes more sense of the order - giving partial reasons why we find particular forms at particular levels. But it is not necessary for the basic idea, and even then modern ideas of evolution work far better than simplistic ideas of progress (the discovery of tiktaalik being a case in point).So, Faith’s claims are both uninformed and lacking in merit. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The very idea of strata representing time periods is so ludicrous, that factor all by itself demolishes the fossil order.

---

You can’t demolish an observed fact with irrelevant opinions. That really is ludicrous.And the strata do not represent time periods in any sense that is the slightest bit ludicrous. That’s just another of the claims you often make and never support or even really explain.

No, jar. If she’d have thought about it she’d realise that she needed all the earlier Ice Ages to happen *during* the Flood. Her ideas aren’t silly enough this time!

quote:

---

Actually it's about as ludicrous as if we grew a layer of skin with every birthday.

---

No, it’s not. It doesn’t have any assumptions of completeness or regularity. You really ought to understand what you are disagreeing with.

quote:

---

Totally extraneous, nothing to do with time, completely ridiculous idea that the planet would acquire layers of sediment every few million years to correspond with a new collection of life forms

---

Basically you are rejecting the whole idea of erosion and sedimentation - processes which are observed in the present day.The sediments that are being deposited now represent this period of time in exactly the same way (if you think otherwise you are just wrong). Any remains they contain that end up becoming fossils will be from this period of time. Please explain why you think that that is silly.

In what way does your alleged analogy work ?To expand, it is hardly my fault that the absurdity is in the bits that don’t work. That’s your fault for relying on a bad analogy. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Look, it's like you've got this one graveyard as it were that represents all the living things you assign to a particular time period of millions of years.

---

More accurately we have material deposited at a particular time, which includes the remains of creatures that died about that time.

quote:

---

It's all compressed down into this straight flat layer of usually a single sediment, this one graveyard.

---

You’re rejecting the idea that sedimentary rock is lithified sediment ?

quote:

---

I don't know how you all manage to avoid the absurd implications of this, manage to think the strata don't really have anything to do with the time periods although there they are, labeled everywhere you look with a name that designates the time span and some indication of the fossils of the life forms that supposedly lived in that time span, and if there hadn't been such layers with fossils in them nobody would ever have come up with the idea of time periods anyway, that's how connected they are

---

There aren’t any absurd implications.Geologists worked out the order of the strata, extending that order based on geometric relationships. Geologists discovered that there were distinctive assemblages of fossils in particular groups of strata and attached the labels to them, calling them systems. The time periods are simply the times in which the systems were deposited.This really all makes sense. You just reject it because it contradicts your religious dogma.