| So you're saying one can't make any true observations about say conditions on Mars unless one has been there? Or a geologist who has studied one feature of his science in great depth can't arrive at any true observations about some other facet of the science he hasn't actually experienced? Or nobody can talk about the molecular formula for water without having seen the oxygen and hydrogen atoms actually doing their thing? Did I have to be there when the apple fell on Newton's head to follow his analysis of the event? Is it possible to know anything about anything in the past when all that's available is written documents and maybe some photographs? |
No, I'm saying that looking at pictures on the internet and going "looks like a flood to me!" is not observing evidence.
It's just a superficial reaction from an a priori position. There is no analysis or understanding, it is clearly and plainly wishful thinking.
| Also, I suspect that a person could spend a lifetime in the Grand Canyon and not understand how it formed. |
A child can spend 5 minutes looking at the river in the bottom and interpolate the vast amount of time it would take for it to carve that canyon.
If you didn't already believe that there had to have been a flood there, you'd prolly see it too.
™ Version 4.1
(1)
