I will address this point only, because genkaus' response was thourough enough.
I never said it had to be a non-beleiver. There are plenty of believers out there that can be ojective without drawing preconceived conclusions. What I will not accept is arguments from biblical literalist, i.e. creations, because they have their conclusion, the bible, and then they shoehorn the evidence to fit that conclusion. That is not science and should be used in defense of an argument.
Please, do explain how geology is 'rife with subjectivity.'
DeeTee Wrote:The bolded words show the unrealistic nature of evolutionists. They want someone who is an unbeliever to go against his or her unbelief and prove the Bible true.
I never said it had to be a non-beleiver. There are plenty of believers out there that can be ojective without drawing preconceived conclusions. What I will not accept is arguments from biblical literalist, i.e. creations, because they have their conclusion, the bible, and then they shoehorn the evidence to fit that conclusion. That is not science and should be used in defense of an argument.
DeeTee Wrote:They also have the audacity to be further unrealistic by restricting the evidence to a field that is rife with subjectivity and impossible to verify its conclusions.
Please, do explain how geology is 'rife with subjectivity.'
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell