Incorrect. Rocks are evidence. What you conclude from the rocks isn't evidence; it's a conclusion. A body of conclusions is not evidence either.
Fossils contained in rocks, and the order in which those rocks appear in the geological column, is evidence too. We can even look at the rate of radioactive decay within the rock.
Presumably you are not claiming that all we can learn about a rock is that it is a rock. Like a forensic detective, scientists look at the clues and piece them together. Indeed they might get it wrong at times. Which is why you have been asked to present evidence here for why you think this is the case. Before you do so, you need to take into account the body of knowledge which already exists. For example, we can look at a particular type of rock and know from its characteristics whether it is sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic. We were probably not "there" when the rock was created but we can know these kinds of things from studying thousands of rocks and comparing them. That's how we learn most things about rocks actually.
You could play a game of infinite regress here. So how do you even know what you're looking at is a rock? That's a conclusion too. You can list its characteristics and conclude it's a rock but you never know, you may be wrong. How do we actually know that
anything is real? How do you know that your reality and mine are the same? We're getting philosophical now. That detective work is really what saves us from these crazy possibilities.
That some consider 'atheist' a derogatory label is one reason so many atheists "stay in the closet". Dawkins has complained that they need to come out, but few seem to be following his advice.
Ikester is simply wanting to label evolutionists with as many traits he believes to be undesirable as he can. In his eyes it is a supreme insult. In my eyes it is one of many ways of looking at the world and trying to understand it.
Ikester is claiming that we can't know anything about millions of years that have passed. It seems to me that this is the old "Were you there?" argument which we've already discussed here with Bex. It's a convenient excuse for ignoring the large body of evidence we have about the past, because it doesn't jibe with what is "supposed" to have happened.
Those who've looked won't fall for that one. They've seen how abundant and inescapable the evidence is.
Just like you've proved in the Grand Canyon thread that the Grand Canyon was carved by a global flood and that radiometric dates are erroneous? Thanks for the chuckle.
