(November 20, 2009 at 11:48 am)Tiberius Wrote: The question the guy asked was concerning predictions. This is a good example of science:
You have a hypothesis (all animals lived at the same time, 6000 years ago, and died in the same flood).
You make a prediction (trilobites and lobsters should be found in the same places in the fossil record).
You make an observation (trilobites and lobsters are not found together in the fossil record).
Your observation contradicts your prediction, hence either the observation or the prediction are wrong. If repeated observations keep on contradicting your prediction, then you prediction is wrong (or at least not fully correct).
I find it laughable that you would accuse Darwinian of bias when he is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the man's position (and indeed, the bias). The guy who wrote the paper has evidence against his position, he knows it (since he stated it), and yet because of his presuppositions (i.e. "Trilobites and Lobsters did live together") he cannot reject his beliefs.
Science looks down upon such people. You may argue your belief for eternity, but at the end of the day, if the evidence is contradicting you time after time, your belief *is* wrong. That is how science works, it's how it has always worked. It's how we have doubled life expectancy in a matter of years, how we have mastered technology for long distance communication, cracked the genome, etc, etc.
Science has no time for people who cling onto beliefs despite the opposing evidence. If your hypothesis doesn't hold out, it is rejected. Simple as that.
I guess you didn't read about the times when scientists throw out radiometric dates when they do not conform with their evolutionary/uniformitarian position. Note, when scientists do this it occurs even after the rock samples have been carefully selected to make sure that there is no evidence of contamination. But when the dates do not conform with predictions, they are thrown out as contaminated, even though there was no evidence of contamination when the rock was determined to be free of contamination for testing. So I disagree. I think there reason to believe that science has plenty of time for people who cling onto beliefs despite the opposing evidence.
So this author recognizes that there is an argument that seemingly is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the geologic column is a result of recent catastrophe and then he tries to explain why it is not inconsistent. Do you think with just this one fact that it (the hypothesis) should be thrown out? Is that what scientists do when the first person criticizes their hypothesis? I don't think so. They try to explain how it is consistent even though it might seem that it is not. That is all this author was trying to do. There is certainly no doubt that some of the observations are more easily explainable on its face by the evolutionary/uniformitarian view of things. This is probably one of them. However, there are other observations that I think are much better explained by a recent catastrophe view of things, such as polystrate fossils and paraconformities. Again, I think one needs to look at all the evidence and I provided these articles because I think the author did a good job in presenting the overall case.
