What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

Can a pot make a Potter? It’s not only easier to believe in Gods hand, it also makes more sense. Now here you’re lumping formal sciences with evolutionary science. What has evolutionary science ever done for any one, except maybe make a hand full of people rich on the ignorance of the rest of the religious. And to think of the wasted lives devoted to finding the unfindable almost brings tears to my eyes.

Some do. If the bible was found to be correct in its telling of history. And genetics was to confirm that we were all from 8 common {human} ancestors then wouldn't you have to recalibrate your measuring rods to take into account a global flood?

What I was saying is if there was an authoritative revelation of an historic event, a global flood, and subsequent observation agrees, then one would expect that the previously held belief that the world has been continuously passive biologically, geologically and atmospherically (if thats how its been) would have to be reviewed in light of the new reality.For example the abundant release of carbon into the atmosphere, lack of oxygen, earthquakes, rifts, erosion to name a few.See instead of creating meteorites to account for dinosaur extinction, in other words making up a reality to make a phenomenon fit the theory, (now were told they didn't get blown up, they turned into birds), you would have to take into account observable realities and then try to fit your theory around them.Or is that not how it works?

I'll try to make it a simple as I can.If the bible proves to be historically correct, through observation, all the way back to Noah, would you then consider looking for evidence of a flood? I'm not saying that because it's in the book it's true, I'm saying that it says so in the book. That's all, no observations or realities yet.If evidence of a global flood poked you in the eye, would you then consider the implications this has on our understanding of the geology of the earth. Even to the extent of throwing out old long and hard held beliefs of an old earth, radiodating and the like, if need be. Or would you reject the concept of a flood and it's implications only because its written in the bible?I don't think it's a hard question to understand or answer. If It seems that I'm having a shot a evolutionists, that is not my intention. But I've just watched a show that concluded by saying dinosaurs didn't go extinct, they turned into birds. I had to sit down and have a glass of water.

quote:

---

What's easiest to believe is not a good foundation for the determination of what's true. It's a good determination of who is intellectually lazy and doesn't really care about facts or accuracy.
  —Rahvin

---

Franciscan friar William of Ockham may disagree with you as I do.

G'day Granny,We might be spitting hairs here.A creator God seems a simpler explanation for the universe existing than does a complex combination of all the natural laws + long periods of time + magic on occasions.It's also easier to believe.

This forum is just a waste of time. It's not possible to put my argument is two two letter words.