[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders

[betwys1 at SBCGLOBAL.NET (Brian Whatcott)]

At 12:01 AM 8/25/2005, Hugh H., you wrote:
> ///
> Not being a paleontologist, I cannot speak with any great authority
///
> I cannot specify the
> specific evidence that they would cite, but certainly the relative
> ages of the layers in which the bones were found are relevant, and
> the radioactive dating is really a pretty good clock, and it is
> entirely consistent with the evidence of the geologic strata--that
> is, we do not find relative geologic ages and radioactive ages to be
> inconsistent.
///
> Hugh


Forgive me for pointing it out: but the fact that Hugh is willing to
believe in perceived features of science fields outside his area
  of expertise, and, for example,  believe that the stratigraphic
evidence is  always clear-cut, places him on the same plane as the IDists,
  and subject to the same discreditation,  when someone turns up
the instances of stratigraphic reversal, which not surprisingly
  result from severe folding and/or erosion.

Here, the temporal progression with layers is, surprise, surprise,
reversed.   In a word, over simplify the evidence to a just-so story,
  at your own risk!


Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!