Summations Only

Absolutely wrong. I've not denied the simple physical sequence, what I call an illusion is the interpretation of the fossil order in terms of the old earth and evolution. The interpretation is the illusion, the simple predictable sequence is not. You really should read further than the first sentence you trip over.If you bothered to read past the three or four words that hit you in the eye you would know I'm dodging nothing and as usual you are WAAAAAY out of line.

Start at Message 1676. There are two different senses in which the term "fossil order" is being discussed. Unfortunately I often don't anticipate that while I'm using a term in one sense I'm being read in the other, and that does make for confusion.But it's a hard thing to anticipate because I assume everyone knows I'm not calling the simple physical sequence an illusion but only the accepted interpretation, though that is frequently treated as synonymous with the simple physical sequence though I'm not using it that way. Unfortunately I'm rarely given that much benefit of the doubt and I fail to anticipate it and then even if I catch it and correct it ridiculous misinterpretations continue anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Closing for about 24 hours, starting in about thirty minutes.Adminnemooseus

Faith, why does the fossil order seem to show 5 major and many minor extinctions, in which there is a sudden decrease in numbers of species , followed by diversification of the survivors to fill empty niches? This applies to little critters as well as big.How did the Flood sort pollens, so that there are no angiosperms low in the record, and grasses not till even higher?Why do we see consistent radiometric dates around the world for fossils of different eras with appropriate dates for igneous layers above and below fossil layers? Rapid decay rates during the Flood which would be required for the consistent dates have been acknowledged by the RATE project to cause an immense heat problem, which so far they have not solved.

That is a complete misrepresentation of things you have said about the fossil record. Here is one of those things. It is quite easy to find more of the same and I'd be happy to do so if necesssary.

Yes, the fossil order as defined by the OE/ToE point of view, not the simple physical sequence of fossils. Why is it so hard to get this simple point?

OK - I gave it well over 30 minutes.Let us let things take a rest in this topic for a while.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: By request, opened for 1 addition message by Faith. Then will be re-closed for a while.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Posted by wrong ID.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added by edit.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "By request" link.

Your comments also apply to the evidence as found. For example, you said that said that the radiometric isotopes (not their interpretation, but there actual presence and measurements) were illusions. You said that knowing that you are unable to refute radiometric dating.You forget that you made all of those claims following your acknowledgment that the actual facts could not be explained by creation science. What you said was that those facts should be considered illusion pending some ability by creation scientists to explain them.If this thread ever reopens, expect me to cite those exact posts of yours.

(Thank you Moose!)======================================= Hi Pollux.
The fossil order shows what the OE/ToE paradigm tells it to show as it were. The physical sequence of the fossils doesn’t say anything about fossils over time, it’s the interpretive system that’s been imposed on it that leads you to think it shows the things you are asking about. What you understand as extinction events is in reality nothing but the nonappearance in the geological column of particular fossils the theory tells you should be in a particular layer/time period but aren’t. A supposed decrease in numbers of species is nothing but the presence of particular fossils in smaller numbers within a rock than were present in a lower layer. I have no idea what interpretation represents the filling of a niche but that too is really just based on fossils in a rock. If in reality the fossils don’t represent time periods in the past but merely say, random burial in one time in the past, then you’ve been grossly misled by the interpretive paradigm.OE and ToE interpretation dictates what you understand it to mean. We have all been taught a system of interpretation as if it were fact. We don’t really get to see the simple actual sequence of fossils because they are presented to us in their interpretive garb. It isn’t that a certain animal is found fossiled at a certain level in the strata, no, it’s that this animal lived in a certain time period and went extinct at a certain time and so on and so forth. What if the scientists are wrong, what if it’s really just a fanciful tale thrown over a few facts?This science doesn’t seem to know how to present the simple factual phenomena, it has to burden each simple fact with the extraneous matter of theory. OE and ToE thinking does this in many different contexts. In fact that was the subject of my first posts here at EvC because it had always driven me crazy that I couldn’t easily find out the simple facts the theory was based on, or trace out an evidence trail to a particular conclusion, and this frustrated me long before I was a Christian or a creationist.This isn’t science, this is bias, this is intellectual bullying, this is co-optation, this is mind rape, this is propaganda, this is reification, this is cheating. It prevents independent thinking. All you are allowed to do is learn the interpretations and that’s supposed to constitute the facts. Stop assuming the fossil record is telling you anything about the lives of the fossilized animals in some distant past, about extinctions or anything else in the distant past. Just see that some fossils occur in one place and not another. That’s the basic reality. Stop talking about it as if the interpretation were fact. It isn’t.As for the rest of your post I probably don’t know the answers, but in any case I’d rather stick to this topic for now rather than change the subject.Thanks.

Hopefully overnight closure was long enough. Thread is now open again.

quote:

---

But it's a hard thing to anticipate because I assume everyone knows I'm not calling the simple physical sequence an illusion but only the accepted interpretation,

---

So we should all assume that you are talking at cross-purposes with everyone else and using deceptive phrasing to hide it.The physical order was the subject under discussion, not any interpretation. That was explicitly stated. If you choose to talk about something other than the order - but still phrase it as speaking about the order how can you expect anyone to know that you are ignoring the context of the discussion and saying things you don’t mean.

quote:

---

I assume everyone knows I'm not calling the simple physical sequence an illusion but only the accepted interpretation, though that is frequently treated as synonymous with the simple physical sequence though I'm not using it that way.

---

If you aren’t treating the accepted interpretationas synonymous with the order then every time you mention the order you must mean the physical order. Which is it Faith ? When you call the order of the fossil record an illusion do you mean the physical order or not ?

I think I'll do that as soon as we get into the 18th century.

Relevant quotes from recent posts in this thread:From Faith:

quote:

---

The supposed order is nothing but a 19th century way of thinking that is just a figment of the imagination and far from solid evidence.

---

quote:

---

There simply IS NO actual observed order, it's all an imaginative construct

---

I think that I can safely say that not only is the physical order an actual observed order, it is THE actual observed order.

quote:

---

There IS no evidence, it's all imaginary. You can't show anything objective about the fossil order

---

That it exists can certainly be shown objectively.

quote:

---

Scuse me? It doesn't matter BECAUSE there is no actual order, it does not exist.

---

Another clear denial

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. 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.

---

And another.And from me

quote:

---

We are talking about the actual observed order, not ideas of relatedness

---

quote:

---

Then maybe you can show me a site where cetaceans and ichthyosaurs are found together. Or I’ll take ammonites or mosasaurs or plesiosaurs instead of the ichthyosaurs. Or I’ll even take evidence of cetaceans coming before any of the others.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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.

---

From JonF

quote:

---

The ordering of the fossil record is a demonstrable and demonstrated observation

---

I think that makes the point adequately.

I've already clarified this in Message 1676. The problem is confusion about WHICH "fossil order" we're talking about. You have apparently thought you were talking about the physical fossil sequence (I prefer that term to "order" because "order" implies something nonrandom but the mere physical sequence is random as far as I know). Since I clarified what I meant it's time to stop accusing me of lying, which I never did. I should have been more careful about my choice of words but I had no idea how I was being misread so it didn't occur to me.I certainly recognize the simple predictable physical sequence of the fossils up the geologic column, and have all along. Sorry for the confusion, although it seems to me it should have been clear enough all along just because it should be obvious enough that I have no reason to doubt the physical sequence. I was reading you as simply treating what you called the "actual" order, as the same as the interpretive system.What I call an illusion is the idea of an order imposed on that physical sequence, the whole timescale definition of the layers and the fossils. Which, again, ought to have been clear enough already..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I've already clarified this in Message 1676.

---

Obfuscate would be more accurate.

quote:

---

The problem is confusion about WHICH "fossil order" we're talking about.

---

There is only one order, the actual order of the fossils. The one we were clearly talking about. Besides if there is more than one, your denial there was ANY actual observed order would cover all of them.

quote:

---

You have apparently thought you were talking about the physical fossil sequence (I prefer that term to "order" because "order" implies something nonrandom but the mere physical sequence is random as far as I know).

---

Unlike you I know what I meant. And I clearly said that I was talking about an observed fact, not an interpretation.Also, since I know how creationists love probability arguments perhaps you would like to figure out the odds if the order being a massive coincidence like you say.

quote:

---

Since I clarified what I meant it's time to stop accusing me of lying, which I never did.

---

Since your clarification seems to be a lie in itself that really wouldn’t make a lot of sense.Why should anyone accept that when you said:There simply IS NO actual observed order, it's all an imaginative construct you meant There is an actual,observed order but I reject the standard interpretation of it?

quote:

---

I certainly recognize the simple predictable physical sequence of the fossils up the geologic column, and have all along. Sorry for the confusion, although it seems to me it should have been clear enough all along just because it should be obvious enough that I have no reason to doubt the physical sequence

---

Of course you have a reason for denying it, just like you deny the erosion that is observed at unconformities. Just like so many creationists deny the existence of transitional fossils. Why should we believe that you didn’t mean what you clearly said - when it is the sort of thing you would say ?

quote:

---

What I call an illusion is the idea of an order imposed on that physical sequence

---

The physical sequence is the order. Try not to contradict yourself.