Pete: To which I can only repeat that we all have the same evidence , but interpret it according to presuppositions and worldview. However, creationists repeatedly point out how the evolution story is contrary to observable, testable, repeatable science. And they're simply wrong when they do this. Time after time creationist "interpretations" of evidence are shown to be incorrect. They carry on using them nevertheless, sometimes for decades after they've been proved wrong, until (as with the bombardier beetle, the depth of moon dust and the leap second arguments), they become such a laughing stock that they can't use them any more. Then their usual trick is to post something in AiG or elsewhere that simply says "we recommend that this argument is no longer used". They never admit to the fact that they carried on propagating them as truth for years after they (Gish, Ham, Woodmorappe, Snelling etc) had been repeatedly shown to be wrong. To have your interpretation *proven*, unequivocally, to be wrong in a presentation or debate and then to continue using that same argument in subsequent presentations as if the proof of it being incorrect had never been presented to you at all is just dishonest. Evolution is absolutely not contrary to observable, predictable, testable science. But you never actually look deeper into the pronouncements of AiG and the other websites you get your "knowledge" from to understand this. I remember a year or two back when you started talking about C14 in diamonds. I gave you a full explanation of why the mechanism for this differed from that in organic remains. I quoted from and pointed you to the creationits' ORIGINAL "research" by RATE, where their own conclusions pointed strongly to an old earth, but were glossed over in the generally released publicity. Your response to my very detailed analysis was predictably woolly and hand-waving. Creationist "interpretations" of the evidence are about as strong and sensible as those used by the tiny number of people who still believe in a flat earth to bolster their own refusal to see how overwhelming the evidence is that the world is round(ish). They have to jump through incredible hoops to get things to "fit" whereas the alternate hypothesis fits the evidence like a glove.
|