"I ask you again, how can you apply the scientific method to the past?"

Are you asking me here the methods palaeontology, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics etc etc address questions about past life, the earth and it's origin, the universe and it's origins? Or is there something else here I'm missing. I've already pointed you to a graphic showing broadly how science works, that should explain everything.


"in fact believing the grand theory of evolution [kerkuts definition /? first matter, first life arising out of that matter and on through the evolutionary path] disregards what we do know , not just what we don't!"

I'm sorry pete, but you're going to have to qualify that statement in order to continue this conversation. How does evolutionary theory disregard what we know? Where is this data? I wanna see what evidence you have to support this statement, otherwise this is pointless.

""question everything" I doubt you do. it seems you would rather question observable repeatable, tested science than deep time dogma."

I realise you have a low opinion of me as an advocate of science, but displaying this petulant attitude does your argument no favours. Your statement above is meaningless and apart from having a dig, I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I'll have a go at addressing how we view deep time.

Every palaeontologist and geologist questions the current hypothesis about the age of the earth and the way rocks form every time we go into the field or analyse our data; it is one of the most fundamental requirements of being an earth scientist. Every time we extract a fossil we question how it arrived there, how it came to be fossilised and what sort of environment the animal lived and died in. Responsible collectors are rigorous about recording this information, as without context all you have is a pile of bones. Of course, it needs lots of data from more than just palaeontologists to ensure we are dating the rocks correctly, and this is where the chemists and physicists come in. Furthermore, you need lots of data to be sure you are getting as close as possible when assigning age to a rock or fossil, but luckily since the enlightenment scientists of many disciplines have been collecting data and we now have lots to compare and test against.

So we question and test the whole concept of deep time and geological context all the time, every time. It is a fascinating area to work in and the details are in flux all the time as we find new evidence that shifts the ages of formations and beds. These details will take many lifetimes to work out, and I don't know if we will ever resolve them fully as it's a mighty complex planet we live on, but we've go the big picture pretty much nailed and there's not any evidence that contradicts that in any meaningful way (feel free to prove me wrong here, show me some evidence), although never say never.