Joined: June 2007
|Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46)|
|I was at Mammoth Cave National Park last week. My wife and I were taking a tour through one of the large chambers that had been dissolved from the surrounding limestone. Both of us marveled at how much water it would have taken to cut such a chamber. The literature in our hands told us millions of years through a slow trickle of water flowing through what were at one time tiny cracks. However to our eyes we could only see the jagged effects from millions of cubic meters of water violently tearing away the rock. Both can be valid observations. One can be true, or both could be false. Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure. Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see. But that does give one side the right to state that the other's observations are not "science".|
And this is why you are not a geologist. You are not trained to identify any signs of what happened. Your opinion on the matter is about as valid as someone who looks at a computer and says "I can't see how it works, must be magic! Hur hur hur!"
People who do know what they are doing have studied it, and reached a conclusion, that IS science.
I don't think its even possible for you to have picked a worse example.
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris