Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, the problem is with the word 'evidence'. I said this on page 3 or 4, I believe.
The evidence is the same whether you believe in evolution or creation or some hybrid explanation.
The interpretation of evidence does require some understanding of how stuff works. I can (and frequently do) show someone like RL that geochronology by isotopes is a world of methods that generally agree (outliers all have bases for their errors). He attempts to say that such techniques are
1 Fraught with errors (an assertion which hes never been able to prove)
2Methods show outliers which disprove the method. Outliers have all been studied to deth so that such conclusions cant be left undebunked. AGain, some understanding is required
3Time has actually changed since the origin of the earth. This may be somewhat true but the error imposed on the methods are less than a percent of value.
Several people of the Evangelical persuasion have challenged the evidence on a basis that their worldview is just as valid because they interpret the data differently. However, afetr saying that, they usually run under a table because we never seem to have any explanations of these differences in interpretation. We merely ahve pre-digested assertions, most of which come from The AIG crowd or guys like HAm, Hovind, Austen, Myers, Johnson, or Gish. These guys have really never been able to, unlike the IDers , modify their worldviews to include the masses of overwhelming evidence.
