Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 1666 of 2887 (830956)
04-09-2018 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1664 by Faith
04-09-2018 12:53 PM


Re: Some of the evidence reviewed
quote:
There are a few ambiguous cases of faults but very few and they ARE ambiguous, while the majority clearly demonstrate my point as they go through the strata from the top down. As for intrusions if you mean magma that's the same situation, the magma goes all the way to the top from the bottom.
And that is all false. If you look at the oft-referenced diagram of the Grand Staircase the fault splitting the Supergroup isn’t shown as going above it at all. The Cardenas lava, I suppose, doesn’t really count as an intrusion because it erupted while the Dox formation (directly beneath the main bodies) was still the surface. But I think that counts as a tectonic event, too.
quote:
No, but they would be clearly apparent in the geologic column and on cross sections, and they aren't, so they didn't happen.
That makes no sense whatsoever. In fact we do have layers you regularly call straight and flat above angular unconformities. That is one of the reasons we reject your explanation of them.
quote:
I can't show my theory of angular unconformities actually happened just as you can't show anything about your theories either, not about the fossil record, and not the theory of how the Supergroup got eroded down over millions of years, and not the theory of how angular unconformities form either.
In other words you have just admitted that your observable fact is nothing of the sort. Perhaps you might like to consider how you managed to get that wrong - and kept being wrong over multiple posts.
We, of course have better evidence. You just refuse to accept it because you’re prejudiced.
quote:
I can, however, make something like my theory a necessity based on other facts that demonstrate a young earth or the lack of disturbance to the geologic column until all the strata were in place, etc.
Even if you could do that - and you can’t - it would do nothing to show the order of events. So even as a matter of logic you are wrong.
quote:
Karst erosion woujd clearly have occurred after the Redwall limestone was in place among the other strata. Don't know what you are referring to about valleys, but valleys certainly formed after the Flood too.
Karst erosion would have occurred while the lithified Redwall Limestone was the surface. And that is when the valleys would have formed too. Before the material filling the eroded surface was deposited.
quote:
Where are you getting this ridiculous idea that I'm just "inventing facts" for some irrelevant reason?
Because your observations are mostly made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1664 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 12:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1668 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 2:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1667 of 2887 (830957)
04-09-2018 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1665 by Faith
04-09-2018 1:09 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order continued
quote:
Why would that make any kind of difference when there is no objective reason in the first place for either one of them to appear in the column above or below the other?
So now you switch from denying the existence of an order to claiming that it doesn’t matter. So the evidence does exist, despite all your denials.
But if there is no objective reason for the order, why is there an order ?
Your attempts to discuss the reaction of the order to evolution are completely beside the point. The order is a fact, as you have now admitted despite all your denial.
So that’s a second time you have admitted to making a false claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1665 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 1:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1669 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 2:53 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1668 of 2887 (830960)
04-09-2018 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1666 by PaulK
04-09-2018 1:15 PM


Re: Some of the evidence reviewed
There are a few ambiguous cases of faults but very few and they ARE ambiguous, while the majority clearly demonstrate my point as they go through the strata from the top down. As for intrusions if you mean magma that's the same situation, the magma goes all the way to the top from the bottom.
And that is all false. If you look at the oft-referenced diagram of the Grand Staircase the fault splitting the Supergroup isn’t shown as going above it at all. The Cardenas lava, I suppose, doesn’t really count as an intrusion because it erupted while the Dox formation (directly beneath the main bodies) was still the surface. But I think that counts as a tectonic event, too.
But these are not the majority, they are the exceptions which I allowed for. And I've given an explanation for the truncating of the Supergroup. You don't like it but it fits into my whole scenario very nicely though it contradicts yours. I would explain the truncating of the Cardenas lave by the same means: it was cut off by the tectonic pushing of the rocks beneath the Great Unconformity, the same tectonic event that tilted the Supergroup which was then abraded by its contact with the underside of the Tapeats. The Vishnu schist and the granite were likewise truncated.
And of course all this counts as a tectonic event, only it's the Big One that occurred after all the strata were in place, the one that separated the continents and likely triggered the receding of the Flood waters, also triggered all the volcanoes and pushed up the high mountains and formed the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase and tilted the strata that are the foundation of the UK island, and so on and so forth.
And I continue to like this theory of events better than any others I've heard, including Steve Austin's in the film that started this discussion, "Is Genesis History?" He likes the idea of the Flood's beveling the surface of the basement rocks to become the Great Unconformity before the Paleozoic strata were laid down, but the mainreason this doesn't persuade me is that it doesn't explain the strata beneath that surface, i.e. the Supergroup. Seems to me that wherever we have strata we have evidence of the Flood. I don't see any other reasonable way to explain strata at all.
I can't show my theory of angular unconformities actually happened just as you can't show anything about your theories either, not about the fossil record, and not the theory of how the Supergroup got eroded down over millions of years, and not the theory of how angular unconformities form either.
In other words you have just admitted that your observable fact is nothing of the sort. Perhaps you might like to consider how you managed to get that wrong - and kept being wrong over multiple posts.
We, of course have better evidence. You just refuse to accept it because you’re prejudiced.
I don't think I've ever called my theory of angular unconformities "observable fact." That term applies to the straightness and flatness of strata and their being in place before the tectonic upheaval, but the theory is theory, not fact, built on various observations of course, but still theory and not fact.
No, but they would be clearly apparent in the geologic column and on cross sections, and they aren't, so they didn't happen.
That makes no sense whatsoever. In fact we do have layers you regularly call straight and flat above angular unconformities. That is one of the reasons we reject your explanation of them.
(I was talking about faults I think but now I've forgotten the context so I'll answer this for now instead.)
As for the angular unconformities, as I said they are the only exception to the pbserved rule that tectonic disturbance only occurred after all the strata were in place, and they can be explained within the rule according to my theory, which is the whole point of the theory.
There are many photos of angular unconformities with one or a few horizontal layers still anchored above the tilted lower segment (stuck there in my view by the friction caused by the movement of the buckling lower segment up against the overlying layers}, but except for the Paleozoic strata of the Grand Canyon I don't recall any example of more than one or a few. The Grand Canyon ss far as I know is unique in the preservation of the whole stack of strata despite the tectonic upheaval that demolished the layers above the other angular unconformities. There must have been a factor that provided stability in that situation that didn't exist in the others. Siccar Point for instance looks like it is all that survived of the demolishing of most of the peninsula it sits on, a lot of shaking that left only that finger of strata.
My theory is really the only thing that makes sense of all these situations.
I can, however, make something like my theory a necessity based on other facts that demonstrate a young earth or the lack of disturbance to the geologic column until all the strata were in place, etc.
Even if you could do that - and you can’t - it would do nothing to show the order of events. So even as a matter of logic you are wrong.
Oh but you are wrong: if I could make it a necessity, which I think has been done already, then the order of events would be part of its being a necessity. Once it is clear that there was only one major tectonic event that created all the disturbances above and below the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, including the canyon itself, all angular unconformities would be explained by the same event, establishing the tilting of the lower segments as occurring after the whole stack from tapeats to Claron had been laid down.
Karst erosion woujd clearly have occurred after the Redwall limestone was in place among the other strata. Don't know what you are referring to about valleys, but valleys certainly formed after the Flood too.
Karst erosion would have occurred while the lithified Redwall Limestone was the surface. And that is when the valleys would have formed too. Before the material filling the eroded surface was deposited.
Karst formation would occur wherever the limestone was exposed, which is not necessarily just on the surface but also in exposed walls, and also within the rock wherever cracks admit water. It wouldn't have to be lithified, compaction would be enough to preserve its form, but some dissolution of limestone may also have occurred in an earlier phase, accounting for the "riverbed"- shaped channel the Temple limestone fills beneath the Redwall.
Where are you getting this ridiculous idea that I'm just "inventing facts" for some irrelevant reason?
Because your observations are mostly made up.
Not so. You are simply imposing a different interpretation or paradigm on the observable facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1666 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 1:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1670 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 3:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1669 of 2887 (830961)
04-09-2018 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1667 by PaulK
04-09-2018 1:27 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order continued
Why would that make any kind of difference when there is no objective reason in the first place for either one of them to appear in the column above or below the other?
So now you switch from denying the existence of an order to claiming that it doesn’t matter. So the evidence does exist, despite all your denials.
Scuse me? It doesn't matter BECAUSE there is no actual order, it does not exist.
But if there is no objective reason for the order, why is there an order ?
There isn't. Not in physical reality. The order exists only in your mind and that of everybody else who believes in Old Earthism and Evolution.
Your attempts to discuss the reaction of the order to evolution are completely beside the point. The order is a fact, as you have now admitted despite all your denial.
Um no I haven't. I pointed out that you could rearrange it and not feel obliged to deny that an order exists, since you could just adjust your thinking to make it work, which is evidence that it's all a creation of your mind and doesn't really exist in reality.
(By the way I assume "reaction" is a typo and you meant "relation?")
(So that’s a second time you have admitted to making a false claim.)
Well, since I've admitted no such thing I assume the other time you say it happened it didn't happen either.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1667 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 1:27 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1672 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 3:28 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1670 of 2887 (830963)
04-09-2018 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1668 by Faith
04-09-2018 2:35 PM


Re: Some of the evidence reviewed
quote:
But these are not the majority, they are the exceptions which I allowed for. And I've given an explanation for the truncating of the Supergroup. You don't like it but it fits into my whole scenario very nicely though it contradicts yours.
Really ? You’ve done a survey that shows that the majority of faults and intrusions go all the way to the surface ? And that every one of them is a single event ? Please show your work.
As for your explanation of the truncation of the Supergroup I didn’t even mention that. So even if it wasn’t crazy nonsense it wouldn’t be relevant. My likes and dislikes aren’t the issue. The fact that we have the only sensible explanation of angular unconformities is far more relevant.
quote:
And I continue to like this theory of events better than any others I've heard,
Liking isn’t relevant to the truth of the matter (and why should your likes matter to me other than as an admission of your bias?)
quote:
I don't think I've ever called my theory of angular unconformities "observable fact."
And I didn’t claim that you did. However if you can’t show that angular unconformities originated in the way you show, you can’t show that they occurred only after the upper strata were in place. Therefore your assertion that all tectonic events occurred after the strata were in place is not observable fact.
quote:
There are many photos of angular unconformities with one or a few horizontal layers still anchored above the tilted lower segment (stuck there in my view by the friction caused by the movement of the buckling lower segment up against the overlying layers}, but except for the Paleozoic strata of the Grand Canyon I don't recall any example of more than one or a few.
That’s probably because those nearest the surface are the easiest to find.
quote:
My theory is really the only thing that makes sense of all these situations.
Your theory fails to make sense of the erosion on top of the surfaces, their flatness, their lack of disturbance to the upper layers, the absence of the eroded material.... and the conventional view makes sense of them all.
quote:
Oh but you are wrong: if I could make it a necessity, which I think has been done already, then the order of events would be part of its being a necessity.
Oh please try. I’m already getting a good laugh out of your claims.
quote:
Once it is clear that there was only one major tectonic event that created all the disturbances above and below the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, including the canyon itself, all angular unconformities would be explained by the same event, establishing the tilting of the lower segments as occurring after the whole stack from tapeats to Claron had been laid down
Since it was clear that there were multiple events, some occurring before any strata were deposited above the Supergroup you are going to have a hard time doing that.
quote:
Karst formation would occur wherever the limestone was exposed, which is not necessarily just on the surface but also in exposed walls, and also within the rock wherever cracks admit water. It wouldn't have to be lithified, compaction would be enough to preserve its form, but some dissolution of limestone may also have occurred in an earlier phase, accounting for the "riverbed"- shaped channel the Temple limestone fills beneath the Redwall.
That isn’t very convincing. First you would have to have exposed walls, then the erosion would be concentrated around them, and not on the upper surface. Not to mention the deeply incised valleys. And the fills demonstrate that the filling material was deposited after the erosion.
quote:
Not so. You are simply imposing a different interpretation or paradigm on the observable facts.
So you admit that your observable facts are just interpretations of the evidence ?
This is why my discussion of the order in the fossil record is restricted to the order itself. That is an observable fact. Paradigms don’t matter to that. You may mix up the fact and the interpretation but that in no way invalidates the fact that there is an order. Likewise if your observable facts depend on your paradigm they are not observable facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1668 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 2:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1671 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 3:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1671 of 2887 (830964)
04-09-2018 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1670 by PaulK
04-09-2018 3:06 PM


Re: Some of the evidence reviewed
Really ? You’ve done a survey that shows that the majority of faults and intrusions go all the way to the surface ? And that every one of them is a single event ? Please show your work.
It's back there somewhere I posted a lot of cross sections from various parts of the world that either show the faulting to penetrate through the uppermost layer or show ambiguity.
"Liking" merely means I think it's correct.
The truncation idea becomes a necessity in the cases I described.
As I said I don't have to prove the order of the angular unconformities if I show that other factors make it a necessity.
The "erosion" is definitely accounted for by my theory. It is a ridiculously puny offering for your theory.
Got to stop for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1670 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 3:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1673 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 3:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1672 of 2887 (830965)
04-09-2018 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1669 by Faith
04-09-2018 2:53 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order continued
quote:
Scuse me? It doesn't matter BECAUSE there is no actual order, it does not exist.
You answered an example of the actual order not by refuting it, but by saying it didn’t matter - because your paradigm allowed no reason for an. Order. Don’t try rewriting the discussion Faith. That all-too-typical Christian dishonesty always annoy me.
Either deal with the evidence or try pretending that the order doesn’t matter. One or the other Faith. You can’t get away with chopping and changing between them.
Fact. Cetaceans always come later in the order than ichthyosaurs - despite their similarities. And they come later than ammonites, mosasaurs and plesiosaurs, too.
quote:
There isn't. Not in physical reality. The order exists only in your mind and that of everybody else who believes in Old Earthism and Evolution.
That is just something you made up to avoid dealing with the fact, Faith. The order of the fossil record is a simple observable fact, confirmed by many, many observations. It was first noted by William Smith before Darwin was even born.
quote:
Um no I haven't. I pointed out that you could rearrange it and not feel obliged to deny that an order exists, since you could just adjust your thinking to make it work, which is evidence that it's all a creation of your mind and doesn't really exist in realit
That is just stupid. A different order is still an order, not the absence of an order, so no adjustment would be necessary.
Let me remind you that the interpretation of the order is irrelevant to this discussion. It is the fact that there is an order - and one you have no explanation for - that matters.
quote:
Well, since I've admitted no such thing I assume the other time you say it happened it didn't happen either.
And there you go telling obvious falsehoods again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1669 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 2:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1674 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 3:37 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 1676 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 4:01 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1673 of 2887 (830967)
04-09-2018 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1671 by Faith
04-09-2018 3:25 PM


Re: Some of the evidence reviewed
quote:
It's back there somewhere I posted a lot of cross sections from various parts of the world that either show the faulting to penetrate through the uppermost layer or show ambiguity
That hardly helps. It’s way, way too vague. Some faults will penetrate to the top, either originally or through reactivation. But The fault I referred to is in a diagram we’ve frequently used and unambiguously stops way, way shor5 of the top.
quote:
The truncation idea becomes a necessity in the cases I described.
There is no case where your truncation example is necessary. Not one. And if it is impossible as seems almost certainly true then it can’t be the answer.
quote:
The "erosion" is definitely accounted for by my theory. It is a ridiculously puny offering for your theory.
As usual puny means better than anything you have. Your explanation of abrasion which coincidentally looks like surface erosion is hardly better than the straightforward idea that it looks like surface erosion because it is surface erosion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1671 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 3:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1674 of 2887 (830968)
04-09-2018 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1672 by PaulK
04-09-2018 3:28 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order continued
there IS NO "actual order," it's all an illusion, so if I answered that it doesn't matter I was saying the same thing as that it doesn't exist. There IS NO order. so you can rearrange it all you want, it makes no difference because any way you cut it there is no order anyway.
I need a break, gotta get outta here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1672 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 3:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1675 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 3:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1675 of 2887 (830970)
04-09-2018 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1674 by Faith
04-09-2018 3:37 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order continued
quote:
there IS NO "actual order," it's all an illusion, so if I answered that it doesn't matter I was saying the same thing as that it doesn't exist.
No you weren’t.
quote:
There IS NO order. so you can rearrange it all you want, it makes no difference because any way you cut it there is no order anyway.
So you keep saying. But you never answer the evidence, never offer any refutation. But then denying the truth is all you have.
Fact: the existence of an order in the fossil has been known for more than 200 years.
Fact: the order is determined by empirical observation.
Fact: YECs have utterly dpfailed to provide any reasonable explanation of the order, or to refute it. If it were just an illusion they would have done it by now - in fact scientists would have very likely done it well before Darwin published.
We don’t need to even think about evolution. Those facts are enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1674 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 3:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1676 of 2887 (830971)
04-09-2018 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1672 by PaulK
04-09-2018 3:28 PM


The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Perhaps this will clarify although it shouldn't be necessary:
The fossils do occur predictably at particular levels of the strata, I hope you know I know that. But there is no rational explanation for that seeming ordering, and certainly not the conventional explanation which you all take as gospel.
There had to be some kind of physical sorting going on, though for all anyone knows a rabbit could show up in the Triassic tomorrow. You'd explain it away in any case, but the point is that any sorting had to be physical. As I said it is certainly not on the basis of complexity, or on the basis of relatedness, and the changes that would be needed from one species to another to make the conventional ordering work for evolution are impossible.
The fossil order as currently interpreted does not exist in reality but only in the minds of believers in the Old Earth and evolution, and its not existing means you can mentally rearrange it to your heart's content as long as you can find a way to rationalize it to please yourself, it doesn't matter because it has no objective status. Its predictability is interesting but your theory doesn't explain it but is imposed on it as an imaginary impossible construct, and so far there is no reasonable explanation except that it has to be a physical explanation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1672 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 3:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1677 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2018 4:17 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1678 by JonF, posted 04-09-2018 4:23 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 1677 of 2887 (830972)
04-09-2018 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1676 by Faith
04-09-2018 4:01 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
The fossils do occur regularly at particular levels of the strata, I hope you know I know that.
I didn't realise that you were lying, no.
I have been VERY clear that I am talking about the simple existence of an order. And you have, in reply insisted that there is no order.
There is no way to interpret that as anything other than the denial of any order.
quote:
But there is no rational explanation for that seeming ordering, and certainly not the conventional explanation which you all take as gospel.
Your opinion is as foolishly wrong as always.
quote:
There had to be some kind of physical sorting going on, though for all anyone knows a rabbit could show up in the Triassic tomorrow.
Physical sorting is simply not a plausible explanation. Why would ichthyosaurs end up with ammonites but not any of the cetaceans, for instance ? Why should all the dinosaurs from the biggest lumbering sauropods down to the smallest theropods (birds excluded) wind up in a relatively narrow range of strata. And why should all the big mammals only appear in later strata? Is a triceratops more like a small theropod than a rhinoceros? Is an ankylosaur more like a archaeopteryx than it is like a glyptodon ?
You have no rational explanation, but we do. It is even false to say that variations of the order could easily be accommodated. If it was cetaceans living alongside the dinosaurs we would have trouble to start with. And if you pushed them back earlier still - without otherwise changing the order - the problems would get worse. It’s not hard to think of examples like that. The order very strongly agrees with the Linnaean hierarchy - which is what should be the case if evolution were true. If the order were hopelessly different then evolution would never have got off the ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1676 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 4:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1678 of 2887 (830973)
04-09-2018 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1676 by Faith
04-09-2018 4:01 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
So you admit there is an order, you have no explanation of it, and you think the mainstream explanation is stupid.
Reality isn't affected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1676 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 4:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1679 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 5:27 PM JonF has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1679 of 2887 (830976)
04-09-2018 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1678 by JonF
04-09-2018 4:23 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
So you admit there is an order, you have no explanation of it, and you think the mainstream explanation is stupid.
Reality isn't affected.
I've never denied there is an irrational meaningless "order" meaning a predictable sequence of fossil appearances in the geologic column, I've many times acknowledged it, but it isn't what we mean by the concept of order which has to make rational sense. This doesn't make sense except in the minds of believers who aren't thinking it through carefully enough, it doesn't work in objective reality.
.
When you all keep harping on the "fossil order" you have in mind the interpretation that is imposed on the predictable but inexplicable physical sequence, the interpretation that it is based on time, that the lowest fossils are synonymous with the "earliest" on up to the highest which you treat as synonymous with "recent." The physical facts do not support the interpretation, which is the case with a great deal of OE and Evo theory. The time interpretation is artificial and is imposed on the irrational though predictable order of the appearance of the fossils in the geological column, and as I've said, it doesn't work.
It is not an ordering of complexity, for one thing, and the idea of relatedness is a totally made-up idea that has no relation whatever to the actual facts. just to some imaginary made-up sequence in your minds, and certainly the idea that fossils in one layer evolved into fossils in a higher layer is impossible anyway because the necessary stages of evolution between the two are impossible. You might get one stage of transition from the reptilian ear to the mammalian ear (after running through a thousand trials that won't work, which aren't represented in the "fossil record" though they should be if evolution actually occurred), but that stage has to occur simultaneously with hundreds of other changes in the whole structure, and that is impossible.* The fossil order as you all mean it doesn't exist, can't happen, is a fantasy you impose on the physical fact of a predictable sequence of fossils. Your "fossil order" is an illusion in every possible way.
*And by the way, except for the earliest/lowest fossils, the fossils in the column such as reptiles and mammals are remarkably similar to modern forms in many cases, such that there is a recognizable reptilian ear and a recognizable mammalian ear, but if evolution from one to another was really the case there is no reason at all why the reptilian fossil ear should be much at all like the currently living reptilian ear. Why isn't it a completely different stage on the way to the "modern" ear? I mean if evolution actually occurred there is no reason whatever that the rarely preserved fossils in the necessarily experimental stages between species should look at all like how the creatures ended up today. And the few supposed "transitionals" that are recognized by science go nowhere toward the huge number of transitionals that would have to exist to satisfy Darwin's own requirement.
So to get back to the title of this thread, WHAT fossils does Dr. A think they have anyway?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1678 by JonF, posted 04-09-2018 4:23 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1680 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2018 6:45 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1680 of 2887 (830980)
04-09-2018 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1679 by Faith
04-09-2018 5:27 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
I've never denied there is an irrational meaningless "order" meaning a predictable sequence of fossil appearances in the geologic column
As a matter of fact, you deny such a thing often. Your claims that the perceived order is an "illusion" are denials and none of your attempts to say otherwise will fool anyone.
So to get back to the title of this thread, WHAT fossils does Dr. A think they have anyway?
Sigh. The current discussion is perfectly well on target. The order is an important part of the evidence. Quite naturally you would want to dodge that reality.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1679 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 5:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1681 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 6:50 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 1682 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 7:08 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024