Why TOE is not accepted

Thank you. That makes sense. This is not a science forum and really we've been off topic for some time now. Perhaps it should be taken to the Theological Creationism forum where the science questions can be brought up but scientific rigor is not required and I can be as general as I am being here.

Nice to know I'm consistent. My my, now that's a revelation. Never woulda thunk it. Yes, I recall this plausible interpretation. This could (barely) account for ONE uniform layer accumulated over millions of years, but not for a stack of layers of completely different composition from each other, each accumulated over another period of millions of years, and each in fact supposedly defining an era or period of the geological time table, as if time were somehow marked off by kinds of sediment. May. Could have. Again, this could explain the formation of ONE stratum, not a deep stack of strata. It doesn't explain how this process repeated with ENTIRELY different sediments and ENTIRELY different fossil contents. It apparently suggests that this tectonic movement has occurred many times, the crustal plate moving over and over again in the same manner in the same area in order to explain these changes -- as opposed to a gradual movement in a particular direction as the continents have drifted apart, which is what I thought was supposed to have occurred tectonically speaking. Again, I also don't see how a tectonic explanation for such changes could possibly explain the apparent abruptness of transition from one to another, the complete change from one kind of deposition to a completely other kind with no mixing of the kinds or any transitional area between the two. How does punctuated equilibria explain not only the apparent "jump" from a supposedly less complex type of fossil to a more complex type as one climbs up the geo column, HOW DOES IT EXPLAIN THAT THESE FOSSILS ARE FOUND IN DIFFERENT KINDS OF SEDIMENTS FROM EACH OTHER?Despite all the complaints about my scientific ignorance here, and of course that's true, nevertheless I used to read a lot of Gould and I know about the idea of punctuated equilibrium. It is obviously an unsupportable hypothesis trotted out to account for exactly the problem of the total lack of gradation in the fossil record that challenges evolution. In fact reality DOESN'T "show stairstepped evolution," what REALITY shows is a complete absence of the gradations that would be expected if evolution had actually occurred.And again, explain why different fossils are found in different sediments. What's the correlation there? Why is each supposed period or era of the geo time table associated with a particular kind of uniform sediment deposition as well as fossil record?The rest of your post is personal comments, so I think I'll stop here after answering the substantive issues you raised.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 06:30 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 06:57 AM

UNLESS... it is in fact TRUE that no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.And it is.And some day you'll know it.

Well, gee, DUH, Jar.

I don't normally argue from that premise here, may not have ever, not sure. But in some contexts it is appropriate, such as the Theological Creationism Forum, where, since it is a theological axiom, it is not to be subject to debate. Does anyone have to prove their scientific axioms, such as that all things can be discovered through reason, or Carl Sagan's "all there is and all there ever will be?"This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 12:20 PM

It's a theological axiom based on the Word of God who cannot lie, and as such needs no defense.I'm not asking you to believe anything. I leave my belief in this axiom aside in discussions here. But somebody brought it up to ridicule it so I am declaring my allegiance to it. It's not up for discussion.

It's a prediction. People make predictions all the time on all kinds of premises. It's not in argument, so it is not a fallacy.

By the way I didn't say it will SOON prevail, only that eventually you will know it is true. Might not be until Judgment Day.

I know that much. The point is that the idea is absolutely absurd that these strata of utterly different sediments with their utterly different fossil collections could represent "depositional environments" stacked one on top of another without the slightest transitional zone between them. That's my whole point. The whole idea of depositional environments lasting millions of years is what is absurd, fantastic and ridiculous. No gradations in the fossil contents within these depositions that were laid down over millions of years, etc. No, there's no way to prove it, it's just obviously absurd on the face of it. All evolutionism has is elaborated tales of these "environments" no real evidence for any of it. The actual evidence goes against it, the uniformity of the deposit, the differences between them, the sudden transition from one to another, the absolutely completely different fossil contents, the lack of gradation in those contents within the stratum. All this evidence contradicts the ToE. But it can't be proved or falsified. It's all a matter of constructing plausible scenarios. This one is ridiculously implausible but because there is no objective proof possible, it will be clung to in the face of its obvious absurdity against all objections. It's been years and it was mostly his popular columns and articles I think. I kept trying to get a grip on the proof for evolution and all I was getting, from Gould too, was these imaginative TALES, these SCENARIOS. It was maddening. Just like the idea of "depositional environments."

But of COURSE. There are MANY plausible imaginative scenarios possible. There just isn't any PROOF.Ooops. Probably off topic. Didn't see your warning until now, Nosy.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 02:39 AM

I believe you have missed the sequence here. This is all Jazzns complaint about my original post giving my reasons for rejecting the ToE, Message 28 which should be an unassailably legitimate post on this thread. You might want to chastize him for challenging it. The sequence from message 28 is Message 43 to Message 84 to your warning to me which this answers.Thank you.AND my assertions were WELL supported by the argument in which they were couched.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 03:04 AM

Absolutely NONE of that requires a belief in "macro" evolution. Every bit of it is compatible with creationism. I've mentioned the "evolutionary forces" or "mechanisms of evolution" in my own posts about the natural limits to evolution, as all ultimately tending to lead away from the possibility of evolution beyond a certain point.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 04:32 PM

Are you trying to get me suspended again? I risk that when I dare to talk about these things. And I already answered you about all this on this very thread yesterday. Funny but I accept all that but I remain a creationist and I don't accept (macro)evolution. What is considered to be evidence for evoluton is as most creationists keep trying to get across to you guys, just as well explained by creationism, and often better. All those things happen all the time. They produce varieties or breeds of animals, only done by nature rather than people. No way can any of them produce anything other than a variation of the species. Certainly it's never HAPPENED. All that has happened by way of "speciation" is that you get way out in a genetically depleted overbred or inbred highly selected type and it loses the ability to breed with the parent species -- AS WELL AS to be the basis for any further variations either. Funny, cause I've argued from population genetics on this very board in favor of creationist interpretations. Except we know they aren't new species, simply variations on the parent species, simply possibilities of combinations of the genome for the kind. All kinds of dogs, all kinds of cats, all kinds of bacteria, but never something OTHER than dogs, cats and the particular bacterium. And "evolutionary mechanisms" is a bit of wishful thinking. True they are the mechanisms of change from one type to another, but all that means is that they are mechnisms for the shuffling of the given genetic possibilities into new combinations, and when selection is part of the picture it always leads to a reduction in the very genetic variability that is necessary for developing new adaptations, a direction that is decidedly against the basic premise of evolution. This is affirmed in discussion of the plight of the highly inbred types, such as the cheetah, and some even had the grace to agree with me about this basic fact when I argued it a few months ago here. Selection at least is misnamed a mechanism of evolution as it can't possibly lead to evolution. It leads only to reduction of variability and therefore away from new adaptive possibilities. Because the terminology is unclear as currently used. If we say species, that suggests to evolutionists something new coming out of the old rather than a fixed species which is what we mean by it, that has the genetic potential of varying into many types while always remaining the same species. "Kind" simply avoids confusion. No, population genetics is absolutely true, and so is biology on the level of the daily work biologists do, even if they do it in pursuit of the validation of some evolutionary principle or other. It's still all biology, still valid science. No creationist rejects any of this. I answered this yesterday. The barrier is in the fact that there is no observed transcendance of a species either. What there is is simply variations on the kind/species that are artificially defined as "speciation" which obscures the reality of what is really going on. What are called new species are at least in some cases actually severely genetically depleted breeds, so depleted that they have lost the capacity to interbreed with the parent species, but also so depleted that they have no genetic capacity for further adaptation. It is a very strange idea that a new "species" would be exactly the genetic result that has the LEAST capacity to evolve beyond its current adaptation, or in some cases, such as the cheetah, that can't evolve in any direction whatever.But this is only to address the "evolutionary mechanism" of selection. The other processes are a little more roundabout but the situation still ends up in the same place. The overall tendency is always toward extinction, not evolution in the macro sense, only evolution in the sense of change from type to type.The only process of all the supposed evolutionary processes, the only one that appears to add something, is mutation. And this I need to understand a lot better. But the others do nothing but mix and shuffle or deplete the genetic picture. As soon as selection begins, decrease in genetic variability begins, the opposite of what evolution needs in order to be true.That's all I'm going to say because AdminNosy hates me for ever saying it. There's nothing unscientific about any of it. It describes what in fact occurs, and it's acknowledged too. Only the obvious conclusion is never drawn from it.Some time if I'm still posting here I'll start a new thread on it. Read up on some more genetics and muster my evidence. But this is all I'll say for now.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 07:53 PM

Not on this thread, no. Sorry.

It's a science topic and I'm not allowed in science fora. I have merely been sucked into answering questions on this thread because of what I said in answer to the topic question.