Almeyda,
Your age of rocks is not accurate as much as you want it to be. All it is is a bunch of numbers calculating pretending to be able to mark an age of millions of yrs. This is not true. There is no such dating method without adding your own opinion to the fact that can add a date of millions/billions of yrs.
Where are the calculations propped up by "my opinion", & my opinion alone?
This is the hand wavey I-refuse-to-address-the-evidence tosh we expect from creationists. It is clearly
not my biased unsupported "opinion" that multiple dating methods corroborate the date of the K-T tektites, it is a raw FACT. THE MATHS SHOWS THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH CORROBORATION TO BE OVER 70,000,000 : 1 AGAINST!
Tell, me, please, what conclusions should I be drawing from multiple lines of evidence that say the same thing? Should I hold my bible aloft, as you do, & just try & pretend it doesn't exist, or should I do the intellectually honest thing & accept it for what it is; powerful corroboration that the K-T boundary is 65 million years old?
To scupper the evidence you need to explain why the correlation exists. This involves directly addressing the issue rather than making ridiculous accusations that mere opinion is involved. If you can't, then you need to accept that it exists. This is not evidence that can be interpreted any other way. It supports the mainstream scientific view of the world & scuppers a young earth. Let me remind you there isn't a scrap of evidence that specifically supports the biblical 6,000 year old earth, yet there are
many correlations like the K-T tektite example I've given you that support the mainstream view. There is precious little evidence that can be interpreted either way like you wish.
I dont have anything to add to your link question. I disagree because i believe historical science is very different to practical science. You however believe they are on the same wave length
You are moving the goalposts. Point C/ was not about the difference between historical & practical science, but the relative tentativity of hypotheses regarding the amount of evidence that supports them. Allow me to remind you.
mark writes:
C/ Nothing in science is "proven", assuming a definition of the word that involves absolute 100% surety on a given theory. All scientific hypotheses are tentative to one degree or another. A new hypothesis is highly tentative, the more predictictions that are borne out, that is, the more evidence it has in its favour, reduces the tentativity of that hypothesis. In highly supported hypotheses, which are known as theories (although the terms are interchangeable even in scietific circles, depending on context) the level of evidential support is high enough to render the theory so well supported that to withhold consent can be considered unreasonable. This is what is known as a scientific fact. In no way do evolutionists, or scientists in general, attempt to conflate a scientific fact with a definition that confers 100% knowledge.
Any example you can give I can question. If I can throw any doubt at all on your example then it can't be 100% proven, by definition. I've already done this to examples you have given, in fact they were excellent examples of what I mean.
The scientific method does not differentiate between historical & practical sciences. The methodology is the same.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2
