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.
Nonsense. Suppose a dead man is found with a suicide note. The note can be interpreted as a message from the dead man, or as a ruse. Until the truth is discovered, both interpretations are valid.
It is the work of seconds to think up examples which show your claim for what it is.
Right, so we start with some basic assumptions\interpretations.
Wrong. Assumptions are not interpretations. And neither of these are observations , so you needn't bother to falsely equate them either.
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.
Every last one of these things you call "facts" is a conclusion. There are no exceptions, not even one!
These are facts from the evidence, facts that anyone can look at the fossil evidence and see, no conclusion, no interpretation needed.
Read that one at an inopportune time and coughed aloud. Would've laughed, but it just took me off guard. I should know better by now.
To even assert that the priests of evolutionism have the power to alter reality with their conclusions... that's just one screwball religion right there! Obviously, if they had such power I would not exist. I'm happy to be of service and demonstrate that this idea is false.
I suppose I should thank you RAZD, for removing all doubt by intentionally posting posting conclusions and saying they're not conclusions. LindaLou may <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" /> and PWCCA may <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheerleader.gif" alt="" /> but everyone else can see the truth. Actually they may well see it too, evogoggles notwithstanding - that's just in-your-face.
Still no evidence from you about history or science that says that this is anything but made up fantasy on her part.
So you credit Jeanie with writing Genesis? I think we have some pretty good evidence that this is not the case.
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.
But in circular fashion, you cite antihistorical conclusions based upon the assumption that there was no flood.
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.
Oh, don't care for <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/takingpills.gif" alt="" /> your own medicine? What a surprise!
* There seem to be problems with the forum these days. Probably a side-effect of the improvements I see. Anyhow, I can't respond to LindaLou's posts. I cut up my response above and the workaround was successful once, but it didn't work last night. If it doesn't clear up, I plan to PM Russ with the details & error message.
