Thanks CTD.
The alternative is to admit that there's more than one way to interpret evidence. Guess there is actually some demand for explanations of the obvious.
But I did not say there was only one way. Just that there is only one right way. Of course there are uncountable ways to misinterpret information. People that never test their concepts against reality are particularly good at it.
I didn't ask about falsification or assumptions. Is this Popper's term, this "basic interpretation"?
Don't see it in the wiki, but I did see this:
Right, so we start with some basic assumptions\interpretations. That there is one reality, that we can understand reality through objective evidence, and that the objective evidence is a true representation of reality. That the table in my room is a table and not part of my imagination, and included in that is the concept of repeatability: that other people can walk into my room and put things on the table. Everybody does this, but this is also the basic foundation of all scientific thought.
You included links in a post & said they were links to evidence. Yet the links led to conclusions. 'Member? I pointed this out at the time, but it didn't seem as if you cared.
The links presented evidence and they also had the conclusions of the scientists, but you don't have to reach the same conclusions if you have a valid alternative explanation for the evidence. All you need to do is explain the evidence of what the fossiol record of the foraminifera show to actually in fact have happened over the course of over 65 million years.
That the scientist says that he has observed hundreds of instances of speciation in the fossil record of the foraminifera is not a conclusion, but a statement of fact that is in the evidence, 1 species becomes 2, no conclusion needed. When the scientist says that the foraminifera fossils change gradually with time, that is not a conclusion, but a statement of fact of what the fossil evidence shows, slightly different fossils in adjacent layers of sediment. When the scientist says that the fossil evidence shows a massive die off at the time of the dinosaur extinction \ yucatan meteor event, he is not presenting you with a conclusion, but a statement of what the fossil record in fact shows, a decline in the numbers and types of foraminifera in the sedimentary layers from those times compared to lower (previous) and higher (later) layers. When The scientist then says that the amount of change in foraminifera fossils occurs at a greater rate immediately after this extinction event, with a higher rate of speciation at the same time, it is not a conclusion, but a statement of what in fact the fossil evidence shows.
These are facts from the evidence, facts that anyone can look at the fossil evidence and see, no conclusion, no interpretation needed.
The conclusion that this fossil record shows evolution over 65 million years is based on the evidence of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The conclusion that the evidence shows gradualism rather than punkeek is also based on the evidence.
And that has what to do with history? Talk about a silly distraction technique... Just up & mention Dumbo to change the subject? Wow! Is this your own invention, or is this a new trend we can expect to see employed by other evolutionists?Jeanie's "fantasy" was a plausible proposal based upon history & science. You cut the history out of the quote in your effort to misportray the conversation, but you got sloppy: you didn't cut out the "it could be".
Well I'm glad that you agree that "Dumbo" is not history, or science. But the issue remains - what history and which science make Jeanie's fantasy "plausible"? You were supposed to provide this, not just repeat the assertion:
Or perhaps you have some historical reference that supports Jeanie's fantasy that "[color:"red"] Before that it could be that animals got really really big (as well as men) because things were super nutritious before being diluted so to speak. [/color] " ...
Still no evidence from you about history or science that says that this is anything but made up fantasy on her part.
Perhaps some fossil evidence of giants and of a noachin global flood? Evidence that shows a lack of rain up to one point in the fossil recored?
The problem is that there are lots of examples of very ancient fossilized raindrop imprints, and a simple google gives quite a few hits -- "about 13,600 for oldest fossil raindrops"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1713001.stmhttp://www.tew.org/archived/mountain.heights.htmlhttp://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct252001/1116.pdf The Lower Vindhyan glauconitic sandstone beds (Semri Group) represent a glossary of tidalflat ripples overprinted by rain craters which expound deep-time rainfall over dynamic tidal sea-coast, about a billion-years ago in eastern Madhya Pradesh, India. The rain imprints, being exceptionally preserved, together with background sedimentary structures reveal periodic subaerial exposures of the tidalflats and spasmodic non-torrential rainfall. Their antiquity provides insight into the physiographic, climatic and atmospheric conditions of the primitive earth. Proterozoic rain imprints possibly constitute one of the oldest sets of preservable geological documents of rainfall in the earliest multicyclic sediments piled up within first generation epeiric seas, which presumably developed soon after the emergence of true continental land masses above the oceanic wave base sometime between 2.5 Ga and 2.7 Ga ago.
Where "Ga" is a unit of time equal to 10^9 (one billion) years. So we are talking about raindrops as old as, or older than, the Cambrian.
So if there was no rain before the assumed flood, then this flood could not have occurred after 2.5 billion years ago, which is also before any dinosaurs or mammals walked on earth. That would indicate that Jeanie was engaged in wishful thinking fantasy rather than any logical development based on actual evidence of what is theoretically possible to have occurred.
What say, folks? Should I play RAZD-for-a-day & get silly taking things out of context & distorting posts? I bet I could do it better & funnier!
And this is different from what you usually do, how? This is just more classic CTD issue avoidance behavior -- and it doesn't deal with the issue or in any way refute my argument/s.
Any time you want to actually deal with the issues rather than play these silly games, all you have to do is start talking about the evidence and substantiate your assertions.
Enjoy.
