>I am not denying any data.
If you remember the supernova example I used to counter your suggestion that
we can't determine when things happened out in outer space, then I would
presume that you would now agree that this data should not be ignored. I
never heard anything back from you about that issue.
>It is a question of interpreting the data which
>must invariably be based on all sorts of assumptions. First that the
>question of origins is a scientific question and thus only silencers can
>provide an answer. Second, make it clear how scientific conclusions are
>obtained not only from the data but also by assuming models from whence
>conclusions can be derived.
Show how a different model can re-interpret the supernova example. What you
are arguing for is solipcism, the belief that we can't know anything from
observation. If solipsism is true, then we can't be sure of our salvation.
> Make it clear that evolution theory and
>cosmology are purely deductive and not experimental sciences. Remember the
>word science conjures its prototype physics which is an experimental science.
Once again, I challenge you to show me how the supernova SN1987a can be
re-interpreted based upon a different deductive model and not have it
violate observational data. I don't think you can do this.
Your position is in some regards similar to my friend John McKiness. He
beleives that science and religion are two separate realms of knowledge and
thus can not be mixed Thus sceince has nothing to say about religion. You
are saying that science provides no true knowledge and thus can not have
anything to say about religion. The commonality is that neither of you want
science to impact religion.
Foundation, Fall and Flood