I think this statement might actually go right to the heart of the problem
I say the way the actual fact of how dinosaurs were buried and fossilized is way more consistent with a flood than with the geo timetable assumptions. It simply is. It's a valid statement. It ought to be treated as evidence for the creo side.
This is where science says that a statement can't be considered a piece of evidence. All it is is a statement, with no evidence to show why that statement is correct. To say
It simply is
doesn't constitute evidence. Statements made without evidence and reasoning to back them up remain statements. For example, a court wouldn't find someone guilty of murder just because a member of the public phoned the court and said "He's guilty" and when asked why, replied "He simply is".
You have to ask yourself "Can I demonstrate why the way dinosaurs were buried and fossilized is more consistent with flood theory? What particular characteristics of the way they were buried is consistent with flood theory and no other theory?" The answers to those questions may constitute evidence.
™ Version 4.2
