(January 8, 2014 at 12:28 am)rasetsu Wrote: Granted, I don't put any stock in it, but interpreting the fossil evidence alone as the result of a catastrophic flood is on much more equal footing with the evolutionary hypothesis, if, one doesn't take into account other evidences which corroborate the evolutionary hypothesis, and demote the global flood hypothesis.
A good scientific hypothesis shouldn't allow information to be "interpretted".* It should include a way of testing the hypothesis.
Even if all we had was the fossil record, if a global flood 4000-6000 years ago was a scientific hypothesis you would expect to see a mass extinction (amongst land animals) event 4-6000 years ago in the fossil record. You then go and look at the fossils to see if this is the case.
Thests almost never make good hypotheses when talking about their religion. They say "God exists". "How do I test this claim of yours" you reply. "Don't test God!" or "You can't" or "You have to believe he exists first" are the sorts of untestable claims you get back.
What is the Creationism hypothesis? How do you test it? The answer isn't reading the bible.
