Please note that both modern science and creationism agree with certain aspects of evolution. It is a strawman argument to suggest otherwise. I know of no reputable creationist website that doesn't agree with observable repeatable micrevolution.
Interpretation of evidence is not evidence. (I will repeat this many times, as it is a common misunderstanding of science and logic.)
Your argument seems to give ANYONE the ability to be a scientist. If all you have to do is observe something, then hell we can ALL be scientist.
As in any field that deals with evidence (i.e CSI, forensics, Lawyers etc...), it is the ability of experts to INTERPRET evidence that makes the evidence worthy.
Here again,
The fossil record relies on interpretation.
ALL evidence relies on interpretation, thats what the evidence is collected for, to be interpreted. However, evidence in all fields are only to be interpreted by those who are qualified to interpret them.
All you have done is viewed the same evidence and interpreted it in your own way...so I will then say to you in your own words,
YOUR,
Interpretation of evidence is not evidence.
What makes your interpretation of evidence better or more reliable?
ttyl...
"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
™ Version 4.2
