Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data

My main problem, in general, with TB's 'flood model' is
that in order for it to fit the evidence that we all agree
exists it requires large numbers of convoluted sub-theories
and is still full of holes.Fitting evolution to the same data requires little more than
the evolutionary concept, the data, and a few dotted lines with
a note to fill in as more data is uncovered.Which seems more likely to any rational human without an ingrained
pre-conception that their mythology MUST be correct?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

You ridicule our faith in the flood (distribution mechanisms in particular) but in your scenario you have systemaitc dotted lines that link not to observed forms but to more dotted lines. Your faith is at least as great as ours.

---

It's not faith, it's supposition awaiting new evidence for
confirmation or refutation (mainly the latter).It's how science is conducted isn't it?i) Make some theory based upon data
ii) See if that theory can apply to other data
iii) Investigate to see if data can be found that refutes the theory
iv) back to (i)That's not faith ... nor is it driven by faith or a pre-concieved
notion of what happened. It is driven by the data.Darwin proposed the ToE based upon his observations, and no-one
to date has put forward anything like a global refutation. Some
aspects have been shown in error and amended or discarded,
but the theory as a whole still carries weight because it fits
the extant data.