SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

I agree with you that there is a distinction between "kinds" of evidence. The problem is that eyewitnesses and documents - the only evidence you seem willing to accept - are the worst possible kinds of evidence.Witnesses lie or are mistaken. Documents can be forged. What makes good evidence is the absence of any opportunity for human tampering.

Scientific study of the prehistoric past uses the same kind of data and reasoning as criminal forensics. Your problem is that you're trying to substantiate a myth that isn't based on that same kind of data and reasoning.

and It should be possible to test that hypothesis; all you'd need to do is get a chunk of similar strata and subject it to pressure in various amounts and various directions. If creationists can imagine a way that that could happen, why don't they do the experiment?

I suspect that most creationists lack the motivation to do experiments because deep down they know they won't get the results they want. As somebody once said, the easiest person to fool is yourself - but few people have themselves so completely fooled that they're willing to stand up for what they (clim to) believe.

So why doesn't the entire creationist communty spend some millions on research instead of on propaganda? Why is nothing actually being done in what you call "real" science?

Try telling a BASIC interperter that any old interpretation will do. There are correct interpretations and incorect interpretations.

So even other creationists, who presumably have the same level of Biblical understanding that you (claim to) have, don't agree with you.

Sure you do. I suggested a test and you agreed to consider it.It's true that that would only tell you what could have happened, not what did happen - but you can certainly eliminate incorrect interpretations by determining what could not happen.

Well, "strong opinions" are not particularly persuasive. I personally am more impressed by a geologist who can, for example, find a vein of molybdenum than I am by an armchair creationist with a big pile of useless opinions. Has "flood geology" ever produced any useful results?

Sure you would. You have a problem with all science indirectly. You can't throw out one part without throwing out the whole thing. If the age of the earth is wrong, then chemistry and physics are wrong too.

"Nuh uh," is still not a very persuasive argument.Since the thread is about different "kinds" of science, maybe you could elaborate on how you think chemistry and physics could stand if the earth turned out to be wrong. Hint: you're throwing out decay rates and thermodynamics.

According to your fairy tale, there is no prehistoric past.Unless you count the five days before Adam was created. But since Adam wsn't there to witness them, by your own reasoning you can't know anything about them.

What's the difference between millions (billions) of years and five days? You have no witnesses for most of the creation, so you equally have no way to establish anything with the certainty you claim.

So it is, according to you, inferior to hard sciences such as physics. See? You said something that makes sense. The thing is that OE geology is based on OE chemistry and OE physics - because that's the only chemistry and physics we have. You remind me of somebody (who will remain nameless) who used to talk about "German physics" - only it turned out to be just physics.

So you just falsified your own hypothesis. Good work.Edited by ringo, : Removed superfluous char\acter.