Joined: Sep. 2006
I'm keeping my messages more concise. I see that you are overworked with absorbing the multiple blows from the others on this thread.
|Mike PSS... |
So we have come to an interesting point in your discussion of your hypothesis. We have REAL data on the table (not your genital wart plot creation) and we have a statement of falsifiability for your 6,000 year old earth hypothesis from yourself.
Mike, my friend, IF it somehow turns out that all meteorites plot on the Minster line and NOT in some pattern like my red dots, then you will have ONE shred of evidence supporting Deep Time. But even this piece of evidence can still be explained in other ways besides Deep Time.
You are not even CLOSE to falsifying a 6000 year old earth.
You ALMOST have an answer in that statement. Also, I'm not calling it evidence for anything. Just a collection of data. I want to know...
What is your interpretation of the data explaining why the data set is linear?
No age commitment, no zircon interpretation, no Portuguese word comparison. Just tell me what you see and why you see it that way.
Finally, you can see in my quote that I'm not trying to falsify your 6,000 year old earth hypothesis. I only said that you yourself have established a test of falsifiability to your hypothesis. From a logical standpoint this is good. Why can't you see this?