Fossil Ordering Re-Visited

[QUOTE][B]200 million years and it sits so neatly on top of the previous formation?[/QUOTE][/B]This is getting tedious. Did you see either of my links above?

[QUOTE][B]Growing numbers of geologists now believe that Marble Canyon and the Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old -- veritable infants on the geologic time scale, and much younger than the earlier 3-million- to 5-million-year-old estimates. Some scientists now believe that a third of the canyon's depth may have been cut in the blink of a geologic eye -- perhaps during the past 600,000 to 700,000 years.[/QUOTE][/B]Well, I guess that ruins the Creationist timescale. Nice Old Earth evidence Blitz.

No-it just shows that interpretations can be wrong. How do we know this one is right as well?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
No-it just shows that interpretations can be wrong. How do we know this one is right as well?

---

JM: Unlike creationism, scientific evidence is verifiable and testable. We'll know, cuz someone else will check out their results. In ye-creationism, the bible says it, you believe it and that settles it. It's the basic difference between science and voodoo pseudoscience.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

scientific evidence is verifiable and testable

---

But it has to be interpreted. Different interpretations lead to different conclusions.

[QUOTE][B]But it has to be interpreted. Different interpretations lead to different conclusions.[/QUOTE][/B]Conclusions can also be tested, because they make predictions. Also you should collect enough evidence to rule out any interpretations other than one.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
No-it just shows that interpretations can be wrong. How do we know this one is right as well?

---

So because one interpretation is wrong, all that follow are wrong too?I've seen this logic before. It is typical anti-science christian. "Because science has been wrong before, it can't be trusted." Well, science is supposed to be wrong once in awhile, as new evidence pours in.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

So because one interpretation is wrong, all that follow are wrong too?

​

I've seen this logic before. It is typical anti-science christian. "Because science has been wrong before, it can't be trusted." Well, science is supposed to be wrong once in awhile, as new evidence pours in.

---

I didn't say that. I just said that evolution can be wrong. Like how Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation for many animals-because he couldn't see where they came from.
"From this fact it is clear that certain fishes come spontaneously into existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation (mating).", overturned by Louis Pasteur.
Like how Brahe's epicenter geocentric model was overturned by Kepler.And me, a typical anti-science Christian? lol. I don't think so. I wouldn't have any other job than one in science. I just think that we shouldn't follow evolution blindly, thinking that it is true and suiting our interpretations of the evidence to it. (Admittedly creationists as well as evolutionists do it).

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

So because one interpretation is wrong, all that follow are wrong too?

​

I've seen this logic before. It is typical anti-science christian. "Because science has been wrong before, it can't be trusted." Well, science is supposed to be wrong once in awhile, as new evidence pours in.

---

​

I didn't say that. I just said that evolution can be wrong. Like how Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation for many animals-because he couldn't see where they came from.
"From this fact it is clear that certain fishes come spontaneously into existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation (mating).", overturned by Louis Pasteur.
Like how Brahe's epicenter geocentric model was overturned by Kepler.

​

And me, a typical anti-science Christian? lol. I don't think so. I wouldn't have any other job than one in science. I just think that we shouldn't follow evolution blindly, thinking that it is true and suiting our interpretations of the evidence to it. (Admittedly creationists as well as evolutionists do it).

---

JM: In your world, how do you think the interpretations of science work and why are so many deceived by evolution and an old earth?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
I didn't say that. I just said that evolution can be wrong. Like how Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation for many animals-because he couldn't see where they came from.
"From this fact it is clear that certain fishes come spontaneously into existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation (mating).", overturned by Louis Pasteur.
Like how Brahe's epicenter geocentric model was overturned by Kepler.

---

Everything can be wrong. We are fallible. You used that fact to discount, or throw doubt upon the evidence and/or the interprettation of the evidence. I am happy to see that you meant only that we should be sceptical, but your previous post smelled like hand waving. I have seen the same phrasing used countless times by people who have been backed into a corner. Sorry if I misunderstood.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Sorry if I misunderstood.

---

No problem

quote:

---

JM: In your world, how do you think the interpretations of science work and why are so many deceived by evolution and an old earth?

---

Because "everybody knows that evolution is true" makes many people suit their interpretation of the results into evolution.

[QUOTE][B]Because "everybody knows that evolution is true" makes many people suit their interpretation of the results into evolution.[/QUOTE][/B]Is that a hypothesis?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

JM: In your world, how do you think the interpretations of science work and why are so many deceived by evolution and an old earth?

---

​

Because "everybody knows that evolution is true" makes many people suit their interpretation of the results into evolution.

---

JM: Show me some examples that support your hypothesis. Most scientists I know would love to discover something new and disprove the old. In fact, that is the whole point of science. That the theory of evolution has survived an onslaught of criticism and evaluation says a whole lot about its predictive and retrodictive powers.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

I didn't say that. I just said that evolution can be wrong. Like how Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation for many animals-because he couldn't see where they came from.
"From this fact it is clear that certain fishes come spontaneously into existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation (mating).", overturned by Louis Pasteur.
Like how Brahe's epicenter geocentric model was overturned by Kepler.

---

Oops, you left out the obvious one: the old, creationist paradigm was supplanted by evolutionary theory. So, do you admit that even creationism "can be wrong?"