I think the original claim was that the fossil record as observed could support a global flood hypothesis. I objected to this as there is nothing in the fossil record to suggest a global flood. It could support the hypothesis if there was some evidence, e.g. a mass extinction event 5000 years ago. If almost every land animal died, you'd see it in the fossil record.
It was only this line I objected to: "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. "
There must be crossed wires somewhere as I'm not trying to express anything controversial! Maybe it's down to the definition of "interpret". What I'm trying to get around is the fact that some people will, for example, "interpret" a noise at night in their bedroom to be a ghost.
It was only this line I objected to: "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. "
There must be crossed wires somewhere as I'm not trying to express anything controversial! Maybe it's down to the definition of "interpret". What I'm trying to get around is the fact that some people will, for example, "interpret" a noise at night in their bedroom to be a ghost.
