Summations Only

I'm probably not going to be able to read any of your recommendations. But I keep thinking that while it's very clear there are geographic and stratigraphic similarities that fit the continents together, the extent of ice sheets could have occurred to the continents separately after they were some distance apart. Probably not far apart, though, because the ice age would have followed the split pretty soon afterward. You'd have to show me the evidence that they fit together just as tellingly as the other elements. I can always rethink the timing to some extent, but I do like the way I've sorted it out at the moment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The very idea of strata representing time periods is so ludicrous, that factor all by itself demolishes the fossil order. But I'll have to come back to this later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It would have been after the Fall, and in fact I've run across creationists speculating about how the Fall affected the entire cosmos. Something exploded, or in any case the moon was hit by debris from some kind of explosive event. The earth was also hit. All connected somehow with the Flood's beginning with the forty days and nights of rain, the first rain that had ever occurred on the planet. The opening of the windows of heaven means something more than the release of the rain, however, but I don't know what. I'm glad I can look forward to getting all these fascinating questions answered eventually. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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

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. It's all compressed down into this straight flat layer of usually a single sediment, this one graveyard. 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, but you all deny there is any connection when it's pointed out. And you'll go on denying it now just as you deny all the other realities creationists can see but you can't.

Oh right, pick on the ways an analogy doesn't work. Typical.

How very strange, dw, that you would allow yourself to make such a deceitful argument, Surely you know that by "time periods" I mean THE time periods such as Cambrian, Devonian, Mississippian, Permian, Triassic and so on. It's a piece of deceitful sophistry to use the term to refer to any period of time from a minute to an hour to a day to millions or billions of years.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Only the historical sciences, not the true sciences. It would be very hard on the scientists who have believed the lies, that's for sure. But if you really care about truth, you'd just pull yourself together and face the truth. You've been so wrong because you've accepted at every turn an unevidenced lie. What is actually true will remain, many facts you've discovered, but they will be seen in a different context. A very hard time indeed but it could be the start of a new grip on the truth. If it's really the truth you care about. Well, that is completely false. Christian theology requires that all parts of the Bible be understood in relation to all its other parts. All of it is truth, and all of it must be understood as working together, no part of it contradicting any other part. You cannot prove anything you like, all of it has to support all of it. As I just said, that is also true of Biblical theology.As for science, if you've accepted a false model or paradigm then you will always be working within that false model, to confirm that false model, so of course if the model is shown to be false all of it will have to go, all of the interpretive or explanatory system, the paradigm. But all the true facts will remain. They will just have to be understood within the true paradigm. You may have to if you don't know how to explain it. That is always the case in the early stages of developing any theory anyway, there will be plenty that's not yet understood within the model. It's not ignoring, it's just admitting it isn't yet understood. But what happens here is that creationist ideas are often not tested in themselves, other problems not yet understood are often thrown at us instead, and even when tested they are not tested so much by facts as by the false ToE paradigm anyway. Over and over creationist ideas are misunderstood because they are being criticized from a false paradigm. No ALL THE EVIDENCE does not show that. Only radiometric dating shows that. At every turn you read the Old Earth paradigm into the facts, but the facts do not in themselves support the paradigm. Yes, you'd have to face that what you thought you knew you did not in fact know, that you had been misinterpreting facts by reading them through the lens of a false model. The hard sciences are the true sciences and they do work incredibly well. They are subject to testing because their evidence can be replicated. That is not true of the historical sciences which are based on one-time events that cannot be replicated but can only be interpreted. Much of the above would also describe the position Bible believers would be in. The Bible would be false and there would be no true God, just all the false religions that make slaves of human beings.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It should be based on the basic structure of the creature. As you pointed out you can't tell a tiger from a lion by its skeleton, they are both of the cat Species. So with the trilobites you can tell by their structure that they are of the trilobite Species no matter how much their incidental characteristics may vary.That would be the basic rule I'd have in mind. But there was an interesting segment of the film "Is Genesis History" where three sea creatures were said to be the same Species although they look entirely different: the starfish, the sea cucumber and a little round creature I forget the name of. The scientist had to pick them up to demonstrate what made them the same Species, which was their many little poison tentacles and the location of their mouth in the center bottom of their form, and the fact that they are all segmented although not in the same way. Yet they are three entirely different shapes, one spherical, one like a cucumber and one shaped like a star. So I guess you wouldn't be able to tell from their fossils that they were the same Species but there are always exceptions to any rule.But trilobites all have the same basic structure of three lobes, a central lobe and two side lobes, and the same basic shape."Kind" means species in the sense I'm using the term above. The words are synonymous, one the English, the other Latin, and "species" gets used for all levels of differentiation ("Species of cat" etc, while "Kind" includes all cats) so that it's hard to be clear when you use "species." They are rocks; rocks are not eras. Sedimentation rates today cannot possibly be the model for the geologic column. They are small in area by comparison and they cannot possibly be as straight and flat from end to end as are the geo column strata, and they occur all over the place. The strata occur on the continents, not under the sea, where the abyssal plains are not straight and flat anyway.{Paradigm Clash Alert} Evolutionary pace is a weird one. It only takes a few hundred years to establish a pure breed of anything you like, and you yourself produced the evidence of the formation of different "species" of Jutland cattle by the simple accidental isolation of a portion of the herd for a few generations. The lizards isolated on Pod Mcaru evolved a whole new head and jaw and digestive system in less than thirty years. Millions of years is ridiculous overkill. {Paradigm Clash Alert}there is absolutely no need for environmental pressures. Simple sexual recombination automatically produces changes in every generation. Environmental pressures may contribute to the final result in some cases but it is not at all necessary. {Paradigm Clash} Oh not so at all. You can get great changes by simple sexual recombination in reproductive isolation. Jutland cattle, Pod Mrcaru lizards, any creature that has been reproductively isolated for many generations. Whole new breeds of cattle or dogs or whatever. Even human beings: that's how we got all the different human races. And environmental pressure could very well bring about extinction because it could eliminate too much variability from the genome all at once by selecting an extremely narrow set of characteristics.Later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

continued According to the geo column/timescale charts, they are identical. The trilobites show minimal changes over "hundreds of millions of years" which really means six or seven layers of rock. I don't want to get into a detailed comparison but eras are dependent on strata and you can get any amount of "change"
imaginable from one level to the next because it isn't change, it's just different groups of creatures in their own separate grave sites.. Unknown factors, hydraulic mechanisms. Process of elimination. I believe I've answered all that sufficiently, most of it is interpretation, not facts. And you are not the one to pontificate about physical facts since you get it wrong so often.Cheers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It isn't that important, I'm judging from the diagrams I've seen and it's not even important enough to go back and get those exact either. The point is that eras are built on the rocks, however they happen to be built, and if you want to educate me on it then you are going to have to do it. I hardly ever go out at all, and then only to medical appointments, just the way it is. .

Perhaps the Phyllum is the Kind and that's what the creationist was talking about. For me to say what I mean may require that I NOT use the terms "correctly" according to your paradigm.Being able to interbreed is a criterion for defining a species from the OE/Evo paradigm, which is meaningless when defining a Kind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

there are lots of Christians in name only.

You probably meant to be addressing me rather than edge?I not only have to learn the standard interpretation of everything I have to be able to see how it contradicts the true history of the earth.

Well, you've been suspended because of this post, which is only right, but I see that you actually claim not to know what I meant by "time periods" though I would have thought I'd made it clear. One recent place is in Message 1801 where I at least give a typical time frame: I'm sorry if nevertheless I haven't been clear but I couldn't have guessed anyone would misunderstand since I've been using the term for a long time now to refer to the official time periods of the Geological Timescale.