A bit of topic drift from elsewhere. It seems that it isn't the data that we are arguing about it is the interpretation. I'm interested in these alternate interpretations that
handle and explain all the available data. It is my conjecture that these alternatives don't explain in a consistent, coherent way. Let's see if they do.
I think this is the wrong forum but I'm not sure where it needs to go.
Buzsaw writes:
Thousands have also been thinking through the other interpretations of what is observed also,
NosyNed writes:
We're getting badly off topic but are you talking about those who use "sorting" to explain the origin of the fossil record through the flood? Those who can't, after all their thinking about it, explain how the flood could sort things that way. Is that an example of the "thinking"? That or a large number of other issues? Sorry, it is actually a few 100 at most for about a century that have been very careful to NOT think about the issues.
Buzsaw writes:
The serious searcher and thinkers of all ranges of knowledge concerning these matters. Take it for what it's worth and hopefully, back to topic.
Perhaps you can pick one of the serious folks who supply an alternative interpretation of the layer of fossiles and show how it actually works? I've seen the "sorting" thing brought up over and over as an "alternative interpretation" but it just doesn't work in any explaination I've seen so far. For example, size is given but similar sizes and shapes sort to different places. Speed is given, same problem. Do we have a better alternative interpretation?
Common sense isn't
™ Version 4.2