Fossil Ordering Re-Visited

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
News article talking about new evidence of lava dam failure and fault activity supports the theory that the Grand Canyon is a geologic infant.

---

Check out mny prediction here:
http://www.slonet.org/~skroger/CEboard/messages/53765.htmlNote, neither this article, nor the science in it can be used to argue that the Grand Canyon was formed in the last 6000-10000 years. You are misrepresenting the data. Furthermore, if the Grand Canyon were cut YESTERDAY, it would still be exposing strata that were laid down over a longer period of time. YOu should actually read the most recent science articles rather than misrepresent them. This news article neither supports a global flood model nor a young earth model, but I knew that creationists would jump on it as if it did!CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
No-it just shows that interpretations can be wrong. How do we know this one is right as well?

---

JM: Unlike creationism, scientific evidence is verifiable and testable. We'll know, cuz someone else will check out their results. In ye-creationism, the bible says it, you believe it and that settles it. It's the basic difference between science and voodoo pseudoscience.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

So because one interpretation is wrong, all that follow are wrong too?

​

I've seen this logic before. It is typical anti-science christian. "Because science has been wrong before, it can't be trusted." Well, science is supposed to be wrong once in awhile, as new evidence pours in.

---

​

I didn't say that. I just said that evolution can be wrong. Like how Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation for many animals-because he couldn't see where they came from.
"From this fact it is clear that certain fishes come spontaneously into existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation (mating).", overturned by Louis Pasteur.
Like how Brahe's epicenter geocentric model was overturned by Kepler.

​

And me, a typical anti-science Christian? lol. I don't think so. I wouldn't have any other job than one in science. I just think that we shouldn't follow evolution blindly, thinking that it is true and suiting our interpretations of the evidence to it. (Admittedly creationists as well as evolutionists do it).

---

JM: In your world, how do you think the interpretations of science work and why are so many deceived by evolution and an old earth?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

JM: In your world, how do you think the interpretations of science work and why are so many deceived by evolution and an old earth?

---

​

Because "everybody knows that evolution is true" makes many people suit their interpretation of the results into evolution.

---

JM: Show me some examples that support your hypothesis. Most scientists I know would love to discover something new and disprove the old. In fact, that is the whole point of science. That the theory of evolution has survived an onslaught of criticism and evaluation says a whole lot about its predictive and retrodictive powers.CheersJoe Meert