Scientific Fact versus Interpretation

What do you mean by conjecture? It appears that you are saying the statement is made up or is wild speculation.
What makes this "conjecture" rather than a conclusion drawn from evidence that was not presented in the statement (ie...radiometric dating)? What expertise do you bring to the table to make you the arbiter of what are "imaginative speculations" and what are fact-based conclusions?What facts are you using to determine that the explanations presented are not reasonable and evidence-based but rather "imaginative speculation"?

And you know there is not enough evidence for "OE interpretation" because:
1. You've looked at all the evidence and the how that evidence is shown to point to the "OE interpretation".
2. You fully understand the evidence presented at EvC.
3. "It's obvious".
4. All mainstream geologists are liars.
5. All scientists that show "evidence" or conclusions that run counter to your interpretation of the Bible are Satan-inspired demon-possesed lackeys of the liberal left.Are any of these close to the reasoning you used to make your judgement of the "imaginative interpretations" of the old earth conclusions?

That's because I have no idea WHY you feel those interpretations are wild or fanciful speculations. Additionally, you seem to be quite content in not bothering to tell anything beyond the fact that we should see them as such.I see the difference between the interpretations and the bald facts but I don't understand what makes them more than conclusions drawn from the evidence. How wild or reasonable they are can be debated but what is there to debate? You need to provide some clue/counterevidence or just something that helps substantiate your claim. Otherwise that's all it is...an unsubstantiated claim.

I feel like the biggest dummy alive but I have to ask. What is it about these scenarios that make them "complete imaginative fantasy"?
What is it about them that puts them in the category of "cannot be tested at all"?I look and I look...yet I cannot follow the logic you are using to make this judgement.

Well, you could see if there are any formations that are being created now that have the same or similar features/details as the old rock formation. It seems reasonable that the same conditions/elements that are creating the formations of the same type today would have likely created the formations a long time ago.
No, you can't test the rock formation directly to find out absolutely if it was formed in the same manner but you can test things that help determine the relative likelyhood of particular scenerios (conjectures, in your terminology).You know, the Henry VIII example seems to be having more and more validity in regards to this thread. You can't directly test if there was an English king named Henry VIII, but you can look at evidence that corroborates his existance and make educated guesses as to the likelyhood that the CONJECTURE that he was king is true.
Unless, of course, you have a way of directly testing the "wild speculation" that there actually was a King Henry VIII. If you do, please present it here because that just might change the entire way that history is researched.

Hello Mr Buzsaw,Your pardon sir but I must question to your assertion. You are saying that there is a difference in how the conjecture on the events of Henry Tudor's life is concluded from the evidence and how the idea of a mulit-billion-year-old Earth is concluded from the evidence.
Could you be more specific? I mean, in what ways are the evidences for each differently interpreted?
Is it deception in one case and honesty in another?
Is it complete misunderstanding on the part of geologists and physicists about how the physical world works, while historians are fully capable of accurately assessing the veracity of documents and forensic evidence?According to you, one investigation results in truth and the other does not, so there must be a real difference between the conduct of the investigations. So, I ask again, what is it exactly the you feel is happening in one case that is not occuring in the other?

I really don't know what to say and remain civil, but I will give it a try. At least I can get some consolation in your having made the decision on what you were going to call mainstream geologists. Since they aren't trying to deceive anyone then you must believe they are all imbeciles. Remember, you eliminated deluded as a choice in an earlier post.In order to fully probe the depths of their abject stupidity, could you explain basis upon which you call their conclusions an imaginative fantasy? I'm really not sure if you have been asked this question more than 6 or 7 times.Yes, this is sarcastic and I am not apologetic about it, mainly because there's no hope of you really trying to answer the question anyway. You probably think it is "obvious" that the conclusions are wild speculation. Sorry, it's not obvious to me. I was ambivalent about the whole young earth/old earth debate when I first came to EvC. It was the astounding illogic, stubborn refusal to research or learn anything, and frankly unChristian actions of posters like you that turned me away from the YEC point of view. I was actually hoping that someone could come up with good arguements to support YEC, since I couldn't. I'm done with that now but I will keep an open mind, just in case.I guess I didn't succeed in being civil.